LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

■ -^^^w^ — 

TJNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 




^.ny? 5"^-^^^- 



Baptismal Remission; 



OR, 



THE DESIGN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

REV. G W. HUGHEY, A.M., D.D.. 

OF THE 

ST. I,OUIS CCNFERENCB, METHODIST EPISCOPAIv CHURCH. 



^' For 7vhat is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body 
alone ^ Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy 
and from hatred ; and lo! the body zj/wr^."— Justin Martyr. 



^y^^Y OF CC'-^£. -^ 

♦ » • — '^ — t-oni ' \ f 



CINCINNATI: CRANSTON & STOWE. 

NEW YORK: HUNT & EATON. 

1891. 



Thb Library 

OF Congress 

WASHINGTOl^ 






Copyright 

By CRANSTON & STOWE. 

1891, 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



THE CHRISTIAN RULE OF FAITH. 

POLITICAL ROMANISM. 

INGERSOLL AND INGERSOLLISM. 

THE LIQUOR-TRAFFIC 

CA TECH ISM ON BEER. 

WOMEN IN THE GENERAL CONFERENCE. 



M, 



PREFACE. 



Five years ago last November^ at the request of 
Rev. T. J. Wheat^ then presiding elder of Hannibal 
District, Missouri Conference, I preached a sermon 
before the District Conference of that district, on the 
^^ Design of Christian Baptism/^ Bishop Ninde was 
present, and heard the sermon, and expressed himself 
afterward in the following manner concerning it: 

♦'ToPEKA, Kan., January 16, 1886. 
" I listened with great interest to a discourse by Eev. G. W, 
Hughey, D. D., on the '' Nature and Design of Water Baptism, '* 
which was delivered at Centralia, Missouri, in November last. 
The sermon was very lengthy, occupying an hour and three 
quarters, and yet the attention of the large and inteUigent 
audience was unabated to the close. I have never heard a con- 
troverted theme discussed with greater clearness and force, or 
in better spirit. The subject was handled with great compass 
of thought and keen analytical power, while the Scripture cita- 
tions, in their lucid exposition and apt application, w^ere strik- 
ing and convincing. The author would render a great service 
to our Churches in many parts of the country if he would put 
his discourse in pamphlet form, and give it a wide circulation. 
The unscripturalness and absurdity of baptismal regeneration, 
by whomsoever held, are made manifest to the dullest appre- 
hension in this admirable sermon. W. X. Ninde." 

I accordingly prepared and published a book of 
one hundred and forty-nine pages, covering the 



2 PREFACE. 

ground occupied by the sermon, enlarged so as to 
cover the whole question of baptismal remission. 
Through a misunderstanding, the publisher melted 
the plates, and after the first edition was exhausted, 
and many calls were made for the book, which could 
not be supplied, I determined to revise and rewrite 
the book, and again give it to the public. Nothing 
essential to the argument has been left out, while 
much has been condensed, and some new matter has 
been added. 

The questions discussed in this little volume are 
not questions of ^^ modes and forms,^^ but they enter 
into the very essence and life of Christianity. No 
more important question can be propounded to the 
human mind than the question : ^^ How can the sinner 
obtain remission of sins?^^ Eternal life or eternal 
death hinges upon the answer to this important 
question. The whole history of the human race 
shows us how prone the human heart is to substitute 
the outward forms for the inward, spiritual life of 
religion; and that just in proportion to the decrease 
or loss of spiritual life in the individual or the 
Chuitjh, there is the tendency to exalt the outward 
forms, and lay stress upon the sacraments of the 
Church. The most wide-spread and dangerous heresy 
that afflicts Christendom to-day is the doctrine of 
baptismal remission and sacramental salvation. The 
Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the High Church 
party in the Protestant State Churches of Europe, and 



PREFACE. 3 

their representatives in this country, the Church of 
the Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, and the so-called 
Christian or Campbellite Church, all hold and teach 
the doctrine of baptismal remission. Opposed to 
these stand the evangelical portion of the State 
Churches of Europe and their representatives in 
America, the Presbyteria'ns, Baptists, Cougregation- 
alists, and Methodists, who deny the doctrine of bap- 
tismal remission, and hold that baptism is the outward 
sign of an inward, spiritual grace. 

The question between the advocates and opponents 
of the doctrine of baptismal remission is really this : 
" Is the religion of the Lord Jesus an inward spir- 
itual life, or is it an outward form of sacramental and 
ritualistic observances?^^ This doctrine is essentially 
^^ another gospeV at war with every principle of the 
gospel of Christ. This w^e have fully shown in this 
little book, which we send forth again in the name of 
the Master, praying that it may be made a blessing to 
thousands in leading them into a clear knowledge of 
the Scriptural method of remission of sins. 

G. W. HUGHEY. 
Sphingfield, Mo., June, 1891. 



CONTENTS.. 



' CHAPTER I. . 
TfTE Question Stated — Baptism Instituted, • . . Pages 7-10 

CHAPTER II. 
The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, • • • . Pages 11-14 

CHAPTER III. 
The Doctrine of Alexander Campbell, and the So-called 
Christian or Campbellite Church, Pages 15-25 

CHAPTER IV. 
Some Objections to the Foregoing System of Sacramental 
Salvation, Pages 26-31 

CHAPTER V. 

Water the Standing Symbol of the Holy Spirit in Both 

the Old and New Testaments, and the Application op 

Water to the Body, as a Religious Ordinance, the 

Standing Symbol of Spiritual Cleansing, . Pages 32-47 

CHAPTER VI. 

Statement of Proposition — Two Baptisms— One Real, the 
other Symbolical — One the Soul with the Holy 
Ghost, the other the Body with Water— One Per- 
formed BY Man, the other by God, .... Pages 48-66 

CHAPTER Vn. 
Born of Water, and the Washing of Regeneration, 

Pages 67-75 



6 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Jews never taught Baptism for the Remission of Scns, nor 

Commanded any one to be Baptized for the Remission 

OF Sins during the Entire Period of His Personal 

Ministry on Earth, Pages 76-82 

CHAPTER IX. 
Baptism for the Remission op Sins — Examination of Proof 
Texts— John's Baptism, Pages 83-97 

CHAPTER X. 

Baptism for the Remission of Sins (Acts ii, 38) — Conversion 

OF Cornelius and His Household — Remission of Sins 

through Faith in His Name*— Their Hearts Purified 

BY Faith, Pages 98-110 

CHAPTER XL 
The Apostles Everywhere Teach that it is through Faith, 
AND not an Act of Faith, that Pardon or Remission of 
Sins is Obtained— They Affirm an Immediate Connec- 

- TION BETWEEN FaITH AND THE PaRDON OF SiNS, 

. Pages 111-118 
CHAPTER XII. 
Paul's Great Argument on Justification by Faith with- 
out Works (Romans iv)— Abraham's Justification by 
Faith— Faith Imputed for Righteousness— Abraham's 
Justification by Works (James ii, 21-24), . . Pages 119-133 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE QUESTION STATED— BAPTISM INSTITUTED. 

What is the design or intent of Christian bap- 
tism? For what specific end was it instituted? Was 
it ordained by our Lord to be the laver of regenera- 
tion^ in which both original sin and actual trans- 
gressions are washed away, and by which the soul is 
regenerated and put in possession of divine life? 
Or was it ordained as the last in a series of condi- 
tions upon which the penitent believer can alone ob- 
tain remission of sins? Or was it ordained as an 
outward sign of the purification of the soul from the 
moral pollution of sin by the regenerating power of 
the Holy Spirit? These are the questions we propose 
to discuss in the following pages, and ascertain, if we 
can, from the oracles of God, for what intent our 
Lord ordained this sacrament in his Church. 

Many persons suppose that baptism, as a religious 
ordinance, was instituted by John the Baptist. This 
is a grievous mistake. Baptism, as a religious ordi- 
nance, existed among the Jews from the days of 

7 



8 BAPTISMAL BEMISSION. 

Moses. All the religious purifications by water en- 
joined by the law Paul calls baptisms. (Heb. x, 10.) 
The term baptism Avas applied to them when the Greek 
language first came into use among the Jews after the 
conquest of Alexander, some three hundred years 
before Christ. This is evident from the fact that in 
the Wisdom of Sirach, chapter xxxiv, 36, the purifi- 
cation from a dead t)ody is called *^a baptism from a 
dead body;^^ and in Judith, chapter xii^ 7, where she 
purified herself before prayer, it is said ^^she baptized 
herself'^ So, also, the purifications of the Jews before 
eating, and after being at the markets, were called 
baptisms; as were also the purifications of ^^ cups, 
pots, brazen vessels, and couches.^' (Matt, vii, 4; 
Luke xi, 38.) 

These facts make it clear that baptism was not a 
new institution among the Jews, instituted by John 
the Baptist; but that it had existed among them 
from the beginning of their history as a nation, and 
that its import, intent, and design was well under- 
stood' by them. This fact will aid us very materially 
in ascertaining the intent or design of baptism as 
a Christian ordinance, and as practiced by John the 
Baptist. 

No one will contend for a moment that baptism 
under the law of Moses was designed to wash away 
sin, either original or actual ; or that it was enjoined 
as the last in a series of conditions of the remission of 
sins. Yet it was divinely instituted, and had a specific 



BAPTISM INSTITUTED, 9 

intent or design; and that specific intent or design 
was that of an emblem of spiritual purification. The 
facts here stated, I presume, will not be called in ques- 
tion by any one, whatever his views may be in regard 
to the intent of Christian baptism. It is hardly to be 
presumed that John the Baptist and our Lord would 
take an old ordinance, which had been in use for 
fifteen hundred years among the Jews, and invest it 
with a totally different signification from that which 
it had possessed throughout the whole period of 
Jewish history, and enjoin it with this new significa- 
tion as the most essential act of obedience in the 
gospel. Much less is it a supposable case that he 
would take that which had been but the emblem of 
spiritual cleansing under the dispensation of ^Hhe let- 
ter,^^ and make it the real spiritual cleansing, or the 
final condition of remission of sins under the dispensa- 
tion of ^' the Spirit/' Yet this is precisely what he did, 
if baptism is the laver of regeneration, or the condi- 
tion of the remission of sins. It is certainly in the 
highest sense probable, that if our Lord took an or- 
dinance of the law, the import of which was well un- 
derstood, and transferred it over into the gospel, he 
would do it because it was understood, and because he 
could thereby teach an important lesson of the gospel 
by means of the symbolism of the law. It is, there- 
fore, the highest presumption that he invested bap- 
tism, which he took from the law, with the same in- 
tent or import it had under the law, and that he 



10 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

intended it to be the outward sign or emblem of the 
purification of the soul from the defilement of sin. 
We shall see, as we proceed with the argument, that 
this was the intent with which he invested the Chris- 
tian ordinance. 



THE CHURCH OF ROME. 11 



CHAPTER II. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

The Church of Rome holds and teaches that 
grace is received only through the sacraments, and 
that baptism is the sacrament of salvation, conse- 
quently it is absolutely necessary to be baptized in 
order to be saved, and that no one, either adult or 
infant, can obtain either remission of actual trans- 
gressions or purification from original sin without 
baptism. 

In the seventh session of the Council of Trent, 
the following, among other canons '' on the sacra- 
ments in general,^^ were enacted: 

" Canon IV. If any one Jsaith that the sacra- 
ments of the New Law are not necessary unto salva^ 
tioriy but superfluous; and that without ihe7n, or without 
a desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith 
alone J the grace of justification ^ though all (the sacra- 
ments) are not indeed necessary for every individual, 
let him be anathema. 

^^ Canon VI. If any one saith that the sacra- 
ments of the New Law do not contain the grace which 
they signify ; or thai they do noi confer that grace on 
those who do not place an obstacle thereunto, as 



12 BAPTISMAL REMTSSIOK 

though they were merely outward signs of grace or Justice 
received through faith, and certain marks of the Chris- 
tian profession, whereby believers are distingnished 
amongst men from unbelievers, let him be anathema. 

^' Canon VII. If any one saith that grace, as 
far as God^s part is concerned, is not given through the 
said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though 
they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and 
to some persons, let him be anathema. 

'' Canon VIII. If any one saith that by the 
said sacraments of the New Law grace is not con- 
ferred through the act performed {ex opere operato), 
but that faith alone in the divine promises sufiices for 
the obtaining* of grace, let him be anathema." 

In the Canons on Baptism, passed by the same 
session, we have the following: 

" Canon V. If any one saith that Baptism is 
free — that is, not necessary unto salvation — let him be 
anathema.'^ 

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, on 
page 127, the " first effect" of baptism is declared to 
be '' to remit original sin and actual guilt, however 
enormous." 

Again, on page 128, we read.: ^^The remission of 
all sin, original and actual, is therefore the peculiar 
effect of baptism. That this was the object of its in- 
stitution by our Lord and Savior, is a truth clearly 
deduced from the testimony of Saint Peter, to say 
nothing of the array of evidence that might be ad- 



THE CHURCH OF ROME. 13 

dnced from other sources : ^ Do penance/ says he, ^and 
be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of your sins/ ^^ 

The second effect of baptism is set forth on the 
same page, thus: ^^But in baptism not only is sin 
forgiven, but with it all the punishment due to sin is 
remitted by a merciful God/^ On page 128, we read: 
"Baptism remits all the punishment due to original sin 
in the next life,^' 

On page 131, the sixth effect of baptism is de- 
clared to be : " By baptism, moreover, we are sealed 
with a character that can never be effaced from the 
soul/^ 

On page J 32 we are told as the seventh effect of 
baptism : " Besides the many other advantages which 
accrue to us from baptism, we may look upon it as 
the last to which all the rest seem to be referred, 
that it opens to us the portals of heaven^ which sin had 
closed against our admission/^ 

On page 123 we read: "If, then, through the 
transgression of Adam children inherit the stains of 
primeval guilt, is there not stronger reason to con- 
clude that the efficacious merits of Christ the Lord 
must impart to them that justice and those graces 
which will give them a title to reign in eternal life? 
This happy consummation baptism aloxe can accom- 
polish. The pastor, therefore, will inculcate the abso- 
lute necessity of administering baptism to infants/^ 

It will be seen from the above declarations of the 



14 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

Canons of the Council of Trent, and of the Cate- 
chism drawn up in conformity thereto, that the 
Church of Rome holds and teaches : 

1. That all grace is received through the sacra- 
ments of the Church, and without the sacraments 
no grace can be received by us. 

2. That the sacraments contain the grace which 
they signify. 

3. That on God's part grace is given always, and 
to all men, through the sacraments. 

4. That in the sacraments grace is given by ^^ the 
act performed^' 

5. That the sacrament of baptism is necessary 
•unto salvation. 

6. That by baptism the guilt of both original 
sin and actual transgression is remitted; that by it 
the punishment due to sin, both original and actual, 
both in this life and the next, is remitted; that the 
depravity and corruption of the nature is washed 
away alone in baptism, and the baptized are sealed 
with a new character that can never be effaced, and 
by it the portals of heaven are opened to them. 
All these wonderful effects the Church of Rome 
ascribes to baptism, and hence she teaches that with- 
out this sacrament no soul of man, infant or adult, 
can ever enter the kingdom of God. 



THE SO-CALLED CHRIST LiN CHURCH. 15 



CHAPTER III. 

THE DOCTRINE OF ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, AND THE 
SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN OR CAMPBELLITE CHURCH. 

Mr. Alexander Campbell, who may be styled 
in no invidious sense the father and founder of the 
so-called Christian or Campbellite Church, in his 
work on baptism, which may be regarded as his 
maturest thoughts on that question, when treating on 
the ^^ Design of Baptism,^^ says : 

" Nor is it only casually intimated that New Testa- 
ment baptism was ordained for this purpose (the re- 
mission of sins). It is the only purpose for which it 
was ordained, whether in the hands of John or of the 
twelve apostles. What could be more plain or in- 
telligible than such forms of expression as the follow- 
ing : ^ John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach 
the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.^ 
(Mark i, 4.) It was not a baptism, but the baptism 
of repentance. It was not for remission of sins, but 
for the remission of sins. The fixtures of language 
could not more safely secure the intention of an insti- 
tution. It was not because your sins have been re- 
mittedy but it is for or in order to the remission of 
sins." (Pp. 249, 250.) 



16 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

Again he says: 

^^In the first place, then, no one is commanded to 
be baptized for anything else, and no one is ever said 
to be baptized for anything else, than for the remission 
ofsins/^ (P. 252.) 

Again : 

^^ Evident, then, it is, that there is no specifiG design 
on account of which any one can constitutionally be 
baptized, except it be for the remission of sins pre- 
viously committed. We are not commanded to be 
baptized for faith, for repentance, for justification, for 
regeneration, for sanctification, for adoption, for the 
Holy Spirit, for eternal life. We are commanded to 
be baptized ^for the remission of sins^ — not for the re- 
mission of original sin, not for the remission of sins 
yet to be committed or in advance; but for the re- 
mission of sins that are past, that have been com- 
mitted, ^ through the forbearance of God.^ ^' (P. 253.) 

Again : 

^* While, then, baptism is ordained for remission 
of sins, and for no other specific purpose, it is not as 
a procuring cause, as a meritorious or efficient cause, 
but as an instrumental cause, in which faith and re- 
pentance are developed and made fruitful and effectual 
in the changing of our state and spiritual relations to 
the Divine Persons whose names are put upon us in 
the very act.^^ (P. 256.) 

In speaking of the ^' Consequents of Baptism/^ Mr. 
Campbell says: 



THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN CHUECff. 17 

^^ But we do not separate these, in nature nor in 
operation, from one another; no more can we separate 
faith, repentance^ and baptism, in regeneration or con- 
version, according to the spiritual agencies concurrent 
in forming a new man out of an old man. We are, 
indeed, enlightened, converted ; or, rather, we are en- 
lightened, quickened, regenerated, justified, adopted, 
sanctified, and saved by the truth believed and obeyed. 
Faith and obedience are in embryo twin sisters in the 
heart of a convert; and are developed, manifested, and 
perfected by the overt acts of confession and profes- 
sion, or by faith and baptism.^^ (P. 275.) 

Again : 

"In our baptism, we are born into the divine 
family, enrolled in heaven. We receive justification 
or pardon, we are separated or sanctified to God, 
and glorified by the inspiration of his own Spirit.^^ 
(P. 276.) 

In his " Christianity Restored,^^ P^g^ 198, in speak- 
ing on remission of sins, he says: 

" Prop. IX, That it is not faith, but an act re- 
suiting from faithy which changes our state, we shall now 
attempt to prove J^ 

Again he says on the following page : 

" The apostle Peter, when first publishing 

the gospel to the Jews, taught them that they 

were not forgiven their sins by faith; but by an 

act of faith, by a believing immersion into the Lord 

Jesus.^^ 

2 



18 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

On page 203^ he says: 

^^ Peop. X. I noio proceed to sJioio that immersion 
and washing of regeneration are ttvo Bible names for the 
same ad, contemplated in two different points of viewj' 

On page 205, he says : 

^^As regeneration is taught to he equivalent to 
^ being born again/ and understood to be of the same 
import with a new birth, we shall examine it under 
this metaphor. For if immersion be equivalent to 
regeneration, and regeneration be of the same import 
with being born again, then being born again and 
being immersed are the same thing; for this plain rea- 
son, that things which are equal to the same thing, 
are equal to one another. All must admit that no 
person can be born again of that which he receives. 
For as no person is born naturally, so no person can 
be born again, or born metaphorically, of that which 
he receives.^' 

Again : 

''In being born naturally, there is the begetter 
and that which is begotten. These are not the same. 
The act of being born is different from that which is 
born. Now the Scriptures carry this figure through 
every prominent point of coincidence. There is the 
begetter. ' Of his will he has begotten,^ or impreg- 
nated us, says James the apostle. ' By the word of 
truth,' as the incorruptible seed; or as Peter says, 
' We are born again, not from corruptible, but from' 
incorruptible seed, the Word of God which endureth 



. TUE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 19 

forever/ But when the act of being born is spoken 
of; then the water is introduced. Hence^ before we 
come into the kingdom, we are born of water. . . . 
Persons are begotten by the Spirit of God, impreg- 
nated by the word, and born of water.^^ 

'' In one sense a person is born of his father ; but 
not until he is first born of his mother. So in every 
place where water and the Spirit, or water and the 
Word, are spoken of, the water stands first. Every 
child is born of its father when it is born of its 
mother. Hence the Savior put the mother first, and 
the apostles follow him. No other reason can be 
assigned for placing the water first. . . . Now, 
as soon as, and not befoee, a disciple, who has 
been begotten of God, is born of water he is born of 
God, or of the Spirit. Regeneration is, therefore^ the 
act of being born. ... To call the receiving of 
any spirit, or any influence or energy, or any opera- 
tion upon the heart of man, regeneration, is an abuse 
of all speech, as well as a departure from the diction 
of the Holy Spirit, who calls nothing personal 

REGENERATION EXCEPT THE ACT OF IMMERSION. 

• . . He who can not see the propriety of calling 
immersion a being born again, can see no propriety in 
any metaphor in common use. A resurrection is a 
new birth. Jesus is said to be the first born from the 
dead, because the first who rose from the dead to die 
no more. And, surely, there is no abuse in speech, 
but the greatest propriety, in saying that he who has 



20 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

died to sin, and been buried in water, when raised up 
again out of that element is born again, or regen- 
erated. If Jesus was born again when he came out 
of a sepulcher, surely he is born again who is raised 
up out of a grave of waters. 

^^ Those who are thus begotten and born of God 
are children of God. It would be a monstrous sup- 
position that such persons are not freed from their 
sins. To be born of God and born in sin is incon- 
ceivable. Remission of sins is as certainly granted 
to ^THE BORN OF GoD ^ as life eternal, and deliver- 
ance from corruption will be granted to the chil- 
dren of the resurrection when born from the grave.^' 
(Pp. 205-208.) 

Again : 

Sixth. ^^ And the great argument pertinent to our 
object, in this long examination of conversion and re- 
generation, is that which we conceive to be most ap- 
parent of all other conclusions, viz. : that remission of 
sins, or coming into a state of acceptance, being one 
of the present immunities of the kingdom of heaven, 
can not be enjoyed by any person before immersion. 
As soon can a person be a citizen before he is born, 
or have the immunities of an American citizen while 
an alien, as one can enjoy the privileges of a son of 
God beforie he is born again. For Jesus expressly 
declares that he has not given the privilege of sons to 
any but to those born of God. If, then, the present 
forgiveness of sins be a privilege, and a right of those 



THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 21 

under the new constitution, in the kingdom of Jesus; 
and if being born again, or born of water and of the 
Spirit, is necessary to admission, and if being born of 
water means immersion, as clearly proved by all wit- 
nesses, then remission of sins can not in this life be 
received and enjoyed previous to immersion. If there 
be any proposition, regarding any item of the Chris- 
tian institution, which admits of clearer proof or 
fuller illustration than this one, I have yet to learn 
where it may be found/^ (P. 213.) 

On page 214 he says : 

"Immersion alone was that act of turning to 
God. . . . And from the day of Pentecost to 
the final amen in the revelation of Jesus Christ, no 
person was said to be converted, or turned to God, 
until he was buried in and raised up out of the 
water.^' 

Mr. Campbell teaches that there is efficacy in 
water to wash away sin. On pages 220 and 221, of 
"Christianity Restored,^^ he says: "Here are two 
things equally incomprehensible — to wash garments 
WHITE in blood, and to wash away sins in water! 
An efficacy is ascribed to water which it does not 
possess, and, as certainly, an efficacy ascribed to blood 
which it does not possess. If blood can w^hiten or 
cleanse garments, certainly water can wash away sins. 
There is, then, a transferring of the efficacy of blood 
to water, and a transferring of the efficacy of water 
to blood. This is a plain solution of the whole mat- 



22 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

tei\ God has transferred^ in some way, the whiten- 
ing efficacy, or cleansing power, of water to blood, 
and the absolving or pardoning power of blood to 
water. This is done upon the same principle as that 
of accounting faith for righteousness. What a gracious 
institution! God has opened a fountain for sin, for 
moral pollution. He has given it an extension far 
and wide as sin has spread — far and wide as water 
flows. Wherever watek, faith, and the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, there will be found 
the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Yes, as God first 
gave the efficacy of water to blood, he has now given 
the efficacy of blood to water. This, as was said, is 
figurative; but it is not a figure which misleads, for 
the meaning is given without a figure, viz. : immersion 
for the remission of sins. And to him that made the 
washing of clay from the eyes the washing away of 
blindness, it is competent to make the immersion of 
the body in water efficacious to the washing away 
of sin from the conscience.^^ 

I have quoted thus at length from Mr. Campbell 
that the reader may fully understand his teaching 
from his own language, and that there might be no 
possible grounds to charge me with misrepresentation. 
From the foregoing it is clear that Mr. Campbell 
holds and teaches : 

1. The design of baptism is for the remission of 
sins ; that it was instituted, commanded, and practiced 
for this SPECIFIC DESIGN, and for no other; and that 



THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN CHUHCH. 23 

there is no other object or design for which it can be 
constitutionally administered to any one. 

2. That baptism is a condition precedent to the 
remission of sins^ so important and so essential that 
"remission of sins can not, in this life, be received or 
enjoyed previous to immersion/' 

3. That baptism and conversion are the same, and 
that baptism is the converting act. 

4. That baptism is regeneration or the new birth, 
and that no person ever w^as or ever can be born of 
God except by " being buried in and raised up again 
out of the water.'' 

5. As consequents of baptism, a man is justified, 
adopted, sanctified, enlightened, saved, " enrolled in 
heaven, and glorified by the inspiration of the Spirit," 
and filled with all the fruits of grace. 

6. By carefully examining the teaching of the 
Church of Rome and that of Mr. Campbell in re- 
gard to the design and eflFects, or consequents, of bap- 
tism, we find an exact agreement in every point so 
far, except in the matter of the remission of, or puri- 
fication from, original sin. With Mr. Campbell there 
is no original sin to be forgiven, or cleansed from, 
and hence he rejects that part of the teaching of 
Rome on the design and efficacy of baptism ; but he 
accepts the whole doctrine of Rome in regard to the 
pardoning and regenerating efficacy of baptism, with 
all her teaching as to its effects or consequents. 

7. But Mr. Campbell goes beyond Rome when he 



24 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

makes water our mother! God's Word nowhere 
speaks of a mother as necessary to the new birth, but 
always speaks of it as a birth from God. But Mr. 
Campbell can not see bow there can be a birth with- 
out a mother, and hence he provides one in the 
water ! 

8. Mr. Campbell here makes a distinction between 
being " begotten of God'' and ^^ born of God.'^ Mark 
this. 

9. He ascribes a cleansing and saving efficacy to 
water. 

10. He makes the "fountain of cleansing" for sin 
a fountain of water. 

11. He limits or circumscribes the possibility of 
salvation or cleansing from sin by the extent of 
water. 

Mr. Braden, in his debate with me, said: 

"Having thus prepared the way for our investiga- 
tions, we now take up the law of pardon, and in- 
quire if baptism is one of the conditions of the re- 
mission of sins. Let me here say thafthe conversion 
of the sinner is a progressive work. It is not accom- 
plished by any one single act, but by a succession of 
acts, in their proper order, and each having its proper 
position and design. Each is necessary, and without 
it all subsequent acts would never be performed. 
These steps or acts are : 

"1. Hearing the gospel. 

" 2. Believing the gospel, or faith. 



THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 25 

^^3. Repentance. 

^' 4. Confession of Christ. 

'^ 5. Obedience or baptism. 

^^ 6. Pardon or remi3sion. 

^' We do not contend for any one of these alone, 
but for all; for the law of God demands all. We do 
not pronounce one more important than the rest, for 
all are necessary to pardon. We do not attempt to 
tear them asunder, and place pardon where God has 
not placed it; for we have no power to do so. We 
place baptism last, not because we regard it as the 
most important, but because God^s law places it there. 
We regard it as the last condition, the crowning act 
of man^s restoration to God^s favor, which he performs 
himself.^' (Debate, pp. 187, 188.) 

Mr. Braden here states the doctrine of his Church 
fully and concisely. There is no dissent among them 
from this presentation of their doctrine. 



26 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 



CHAPTER IV. 

SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING SYSTEM OF 
SACRAMENTAL SALVATION. 

There seem^ to my mind, many insuperable ob- 
jections to this system of baptismal remission and 
sacramental salvation. Among the many, I present 
a few. 

Objection 1. No intelligent man can believe it. 
Even its strongest advocates do not believe it. Every 
one of them will repudiate it when pressed with the con- 
sequences which logically and necessarily follow from 
it, and declare that there are multitudes of persons 
to whom the gospel is preached who have received 
remission of sins, enjoy the favor of God, and will 
be saved, who have never been baptized. But their 
admission of this fact, which they can not avoid, 
proves that the whole system is false, and rests upon 
a perversion of the Word of God. 

According to this doctrine of baptismal remission, 
as taught by Mr. Campbell, Mr. Braden, and the 
Church which they represent, Luther, Wesley, White- 
field, Edwards, Payson, Fletcher, and all the holy men 
and women who have blessed the world with their 
consecrated lives, and died with the shout of triumph 
on their lips, who had not been immersed (for noth- 



OBJECTIONS. 27 

ing IS baptism with them but immersion) were aliens 
from God, un regenerated — unpardoned rebels against 
the Divine Government — died unforgiven, and were 
eternally lost! But they do not believe this — no 
man in his senses can believe it. Yet, if these holy 
men of God were saved, the whole doctrine of bap- 
tismal remission is false and unscriptural ; for, accord- 
ing to this system, they were never baptized. 

Objection 2. This system of baptismal remis- 
sion and sacramental salvation takes the salvation of 
the penitent believer out of the hands of Christ, the 
" one mediator between God and man,^^ and puts it 
into the hands of a second mediator— a mediator be- 
tween Christ the Savior and the penitent believer — an 
administrator of baptism ! This accords exactly with 
the doctrine of Rome; for with her the priest stands 
in the place of Christ, and the penitent sinner can 
reach Christ only through the priest. But it is utterly 
abhorrent to evangelical Protestant teaching and to the 
Holy Scriptures. When the broken-hearted penitent 
sinner is ready to receive Christ by faith, there is no 
power in earth or hell that can prevent his forgiveness 
and salvation a single moment. But this doctrine of 
baptismal remission teaches that the penitent sinner 
may be ready to receive Christ, and the all-loving 
heart of Christ may be reaching out in intense long- 
ings to save him; but a sinful man, a priest or an 
administrator of baptism, may step in between Christ 
and the believing penitent, and call a halt in the work 



28 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

of salvation, and thwart the love of Christ and make 
void the faith of the penitent by refusing to adminis- 
ter the sacrament of baptism, through which alone 
remission of sins can be obtained. A doctrine that 
involves such consequences is at war with the teach- 
ings of the Holy Scriptures and repugnant to the 
common sense of mankind. 

Objection 3. It limits the efficacy of the blood 
of Christ to the physical element of water. Mr. 
Campbell says : " What a gracious institution ! God 
has opened a fountain for sin, for moral pollution. 
He has given it an extension far and wide as sin has 
spread — far and wide as water flows. Wherever 
faith, WATER, and the name of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit are, there will be found the efficacy of the 
blood of Jesus !^^ According to this, where water is 
not found, there '' the efficacy of the blood of Jesus ^' 
can not be found. But this is not all. Water must 
be found in sufficient quantity for immersion, or the 
blood of Jesus can have no efficacy. According to 
this teaching, there are vast portions of our planet 
Avhere the efficacy of the blood of Jesus can not be 
found. Can any man in his senses accept such a mon- 
strosity as the gospel of the Son of God ? 

Objection 4. This doctrine of baptismal remis- 
sion makes the salvation of multitudes impossible. 
There are multitudes of cases where the immersion 
of the penitent believer is impossible. Such cases 
are constantly occurring. We could give many ex- 



OBJECTIONS. 29 

amples which have occurred. Is it possible that the 
all-wise God, in providing a method of salvation for 
sinners, would make such a blunder as to devise a 
method that would make the salvation of multitudes 
impossible ? 

Objection 5. It completely reverses the gospel 
order of repentance and faith. In this system faith 
always precedes repentance. In the New Testament 
repentance always precedes faith. There is not a 
single exception to this rule. 

In Mark i, 14, 15, we read: ^^Now after that 
John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, 
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God ; and 
saying. The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God 
is at hand ; repent ye, and believe the gospel.^^ 

Jesus always put repentance before faith, and 
taught that repentance was a condition of the proper 
exercise of faith. 

In Matthew xxi, 32, we read : " For John came 
unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed 
him not; but the publicans and harlots believed him; 
and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, 
that ye might believe him.^^ 

In Acts XX, 21, Paul says: "Testifying, both to 
Jews and also Greeks, repentance toward God, and 
faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.^^ 

This is the order of repentance and faith every- 
where in the New Testament. There is not an ex- 
ample where faith precedes repentance; but always 



30 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

repentance first, and then faith. Here we have a per- 
fect contrast between this system of baptismal remis- 
sion and the New Testament. 

Objection 6. This doctrine of baptismal remis- 
sion flatly contradicts the Word of God, which 
teaches that the penitent believer is ^^ justified by 
faith/^ while it affirms that we are not justified by 
faith, but by ^^ an act of faith. ^^ Jesus says (John iii, 
18): ^^He that believeth on him is not condemned/' 
But this system says this is not true, and Jesus was 
mistaken ; for a man may believe in Christ, and still 
be under condemnation, until, by an act of faith — that 
is by baptism — he crosses the line into the justified 
state. John the Baptist said : ^^ He that beh'eveth on 
the Son hath everlasting life.'' (John iii, 36). But 
this system says this is not true, for a man can 
not have eternal life until he receives it by an act 
of faith. Paul says: "Therefore, being justified by 
faith, we have peace with God." (Romans v, 1.) 
But this system says Paul was mistaken, for a man is 
not justified by faith at all, but by an act of faith. 
Jesus said to the weeping penitent : " Thy faith hath 
saved thee." (Luke vii, 50.) But this system says 
Jesus was mistaken, for it is not faith that saves, but 
an act of faith. Peter said of Cornelius and his 
household: "And God, which knoweth the hearts, 
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even 
as he did unto us, and put no difference between us 
and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 



OBJECTIONS. 31 

XV, 8, 9.) Bat this system declares that Peter was 
mistaken, that God did not purify their hearts by 
faith, but by an act of faith; that is, by baptism. 

Which are we going to believe — Jesus, John the 
Baptist, Peter, Paul, and John, or this system of 
baptismal remission ? We can not believe both, for 
there is a flat contradiction in their teachings. 
Throughout the whole Bible, pardon or remission of 
sins is never said to be received by or through an 
act of faith; but always and everywhere pardon, jus- 
tification, purification, and salvation from sin are de- 
clared to be received by faith. 



32 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 



CHAPTER V. 

WATER THE STANDING SYMBOL OF THE HOLY 
SPIRIT IN BOTH THE OLD AND NEW TESTA- 
MENTS; AND THE APPLICATION OF WATER TO 
THE BODY AS A RELIGIOUS ORDINANCE, THE 
STANDING SYMBOL OF SPIRITUAL CLEANSING. 

Water is the standing symbol of the Holy Spirit 
throughout both the Old and New Testaments, and 
the application of water to the body as a religious 
ordinance is the standing symbol of spiritual cleans- 
ing. This fact of itself ought to settle the contro- 
versy as to the intent or design of baptism in every 
thoughtful mind. 

In Isaiah xxxv, 6, 7, we read : ^^ Then shall the 
lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb 
sing ; for in the wilderness shall waters break out, 
and streams in the desert. And the parched ground 
shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of 
water.^^ 

In Isaiah xliv, 3, we read : ^^ For I will pour 
water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the 
dry ground.^^ 

That there might be no doubt left on the mind as 
to the meaning of the figure here employed, the 
prophet immediately adds in explanation : ^^ I will 



WATER A SYMBOL. 33 

pour my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon 
thine oflfspring/^ 

In Isaiah Iv^ 1, we read: ^^Ho, every one that 
thirsteth^ come ye to the waters/^ 

In Jeremiah ii, 13^ we read: ^^For my people 
have committed two evils : they have forsaken me 
the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out 
cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water/^ 

In Jeremiah xvii, 13, we read: ^^ O Lord, the hope 
of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and 
they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, 
because they have forsaken the Loed, the fountain of 
living waters/^ 

In Zechariah xiv, 8, we read : ^^ And it shall be in 
that day that living waters shall go out from Jerusa- 
lem ; half of them toward the former sea, and half of 
them toward the hinder sea; in summer and in winter 
shall it be/' 

Such passages might be multiplied indefinitely, but 
these are sufficient to prove conclusively that through- 
out the Old Testament, water was used as the standing 
symbol of the Holy Spirit; that God, who is the fount-; 
ain of all spiritual blessings, is called " the fountain 
of living waters.^' 

The New Testament is equally explicit. In the 
conversation of Jesus with the woman of Samaria 
this fact is brought out fully, ^^ Then saith the 
woman of Samaria unto him. How is it that thou, 
being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of 



34 BAPTISMAL RE3nSSI0K 

Samaria ? . • . Jesus answered and said unto her, 
If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that 
saith unto thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have 
asked of him, and he would have given thee living 
Avater. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast 
nothing to draw with, and the well is deep ; from 
whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou 
greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, 
and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his 
cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, AVhoso- 
ever drinketh of this water shall thirst again ; but 
whosoever drinketh of water that I shall give him 
shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him 
shall be in him a well of water springing up into ever- 
lasting life/^ (John iv, 9-14.) 

In John vii, 37-39, ^ve read : ^^ In the last day, 
that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, 
saying. If any man thirst, let him come unto me and 
drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture 
hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living 
water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they 
that believe on him should receive: for the Holy 
Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not 
yet glorified/^) 

Surely these explicit statements of the Son of 
God himself are sufficient to prove that in the New 
Testament, as well as in the Old, w^ater is the stand- 
ing symbol of the Holy Spirit. They prove, too, 
that wherever Jesus uses the term ^^ water ^^ in a re- 



WATER A SYMBOL. 35 

Hgious sense, he means the Holy Spirit, Hence, when 
he says, ^^ Except a man be born of water/^ he does 
not mean physical water, but he means the Holy 
Spirit just as certainly as he does in John vii, 38, 
where there can be no question whatever about the 
meaning of the word water; for John expressly 
affirms that by water in that passage he does mean 
the Holy Ghost. Jesus's use of the word water in 
these passages throws a flood of light on John iii, 5, 
and removes all the difficulty in the way of getting a 
right understanding of the expression ^^ born of water/^ 

Having thus established the fact, beyond the pos- 
sibility of controversy or cavil, that water through- 
out both Testaments is the standing symbol of the 
Holy Spirit, I now proceed to prove that cleansing 
by water, or the application of water to the body as 
a religious rite or ordinance, is throughout both Tes- 
taments the symbol of spiritual cleansing, and not 
that cleansing itself, any more than water is the Holy 
Spirit. 

The whole Jewish ritual was a system of types 
or symbols, divided into two grand divisions — bloody 
sacrifices and watery ablutions — which could neither 
purge away sin nor purify the soul. The one pointed 
to the great atoning sacrifice of ^^ the Lamb of God,^^ 
which can alone expiate sin ; the other, to the cleans- 
ing power of the Holy Spirit, which can alone purify 
the heart. This great truth is brought out fully in 
Hebrews ix, 8-14. 



36 BAPTISMAL REMISSION, 

In Psalm li, 7, David says: ^^ Purge me with 
hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall 
be whiter than snow.^^ Surely he did not believe that 
the foul stains of adultery and murder, that were 
cleaving to his guilty soul, could be washed out by 
sprinkling the water of purification upon his body' 
with a bunch of hyssop! What does he mean, then, 
when he uses this language in his penitent plea for 
pardon? He himself explains what he means in verse 
ten, where he says : ^^ Create in me a clean heart, O 
God, and renew a right spirit within me/^ In his 
prayer for pardon and purity, he first asks for these 
blessings under the symbol through which they were 
shadowed forth ; and then dropping the symbol, he 
asks for the ^^ clean heart^^ and ^^ renewed spirit,^^ 
without a figure. There is no possible chance of 
misunderstanding the psalmist here; all are agreed 
that sprinkling with hyssop could not make David 
morally clean, and that under this figure he asked for 
the spiritual cleansing it symbolized. 

In Ezekiel, xxxvi, 25-27, we read : ^^ Then will I 
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : 
from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will 
I cleanse, you. A new heart also will I give you, and 
a new spirit will I put within you : and I will take 
away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will 
give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit 
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes^ and 
ye shall keep my judgments, and do themj^ 



WATER A SYMBOL. 37 

Will the advocates of baptismal remission and puri- 
fication contend that the house of Israel in EzekieFs 
time, or in the time to which this prophecy refers^ 
were really cleansed from all their idolatries and moral 
unclean ness by having clean water sprinkled upon 
them ? Not for a moment will they contend for any 
such thing. If immersion had been the mode of puri- 
fication, they might have contended that it really 
washed away the sins and spiritual pollutions of the 
house of Israel; but sprinkling is the mode, and it 
will not do for them to contend that it could wash 
away sin! In this passage the application of water to 
the body by sprinkling is simply emblematic of the 
cleansing of the soul. There can not be found a 
passage in the New Testament in which purification 
by water, T)r remission of sins by baptism, is as ex- 
plicitly taught as it is here declared that David and 
the house of Israel were made morally clean by 
sprinkling water upon them. If these passages do not 
teach spiritual purification by water, no passages in 
the Bible can, for language could not more explicitly 
declare a thing than it is here declared that David and 
the house of Israel should be made clean by " speink- 

Yet no one mistakes the import of these passages, 
so as to confound the real cleansing of David and the 
house of Israel with the symbol of it. How is it, 
then, that the advocates of baptismal remission can 
not understand the relation existing between the real 



38 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

cleansing from sin under the gospel, and its emblem, 
baptism? I could affirm with greater plausibility 
that sprinkling with water under the law of Moses 
washed away sin, and prove it by a stronger array of 
Scripture passages, than the advocates of baptismal re- 
mission can that baptism under the gospel is for the 
remission of sins. 

When we come to the New Testament, we find 
that the same relation exists between the application 
of water to the body in baptism to spiritual purifica- 
tion, that existed under the law between the religious 
washings of the Jews and spiritual cleansing; that it 
does not cleanse from sin, that it does not remit sin, 
but it is the emblem of spiritual purification. This is 
proved : 

First. By the fact, which we shall establish in the 
next chapter, that there are two baptisms among ^^ the 
principles of the doctrine of Christ'^— one of water, 
the other of the Holy Ghost ; one the baptism of the 
soul by Christ, the other the baptism of the body by 
a human administrator; the one purifying the soul 
and putting us into Christ, the other the emblem of it. 
Second. By the language of John the Baptist, 
Jesus, and Peter. John said: ''I indeed baptize you 
with water; He shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost.^^ Jesus said: *' For John truly baptized with 
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost 
not many days hence.'' Peter said, when he saw the 
household of Cornelius baptized with the Holy Ghost : 



WATER A SYMBOL. 39 

^^ Then remembered I the Word of the Lord^ how 
that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but 
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost/^ These 
passages all show plainly the relation of these two 
baptisms to each other to be that of the real and 
symbolical; the one conferring spiritual purity, the 
other emblematic of it. 

Third. Paul expressly declares that this is the re- 
lation between baptism and spiritual cleansing in 
Hebrews x, 22 : ^^ Let us draw near with a true heart, 
in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled 
from our evil conscience, and our bodies w^ashed with 
pure water/^ This passage, when properly understood, 
settles the whole controversy. 

Here are two things done — one on the ^^ heart/^ 
the other on the ^'hody.^^ The heart is "sprinkled,^' 
the body is '' washed.^' It will not be contended by 
the advocates of baptismal remission that the ^^ sprink- 
ling ^^ and ^^ washing ^^ are one and the same thing, for 
obvious reasons. The results accomplished are as dis- 
tinct as the processes described. The result accom- 
plished by the ^^ sprinkling of the heart^^ is totally 
different from that accomplished by the ^^ washing of 
the body.^^ The washing of the body unquestionably 
means baptism, for the New Testament knows no 
other application of water to the body as a religious 
rite. We are now prepared to note : 

1. Paul here affirms that the " heart ^^ is purified 
^^ from an evil conscience ^^ by ^^ speinkling.^^ 



40 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

2. This ^^ sprinkling,^' which purifies the heart 
^^ from an evil conscience/^ is not a sprinkling of the 
body, but of the heaet. 

3. The '^ heart ^^ being purified '^ from an evil con- 
science " by " sprinkling,^' it could not be purified by 
^^ washing the body with pure water/^ or by baptism. 

Mr. Campbell, as ^ve have seen, makes baptism 
wash away "sin from the conscience. ^^ He says: 
"And to him that made the washing of clay from the 
eyes the washing away of blindness, it is competent 
to make the immersion of the body in water effica- 
cious to the washing away of sin from the conscience.'' 
(Christianity Restored, pp. 220, 221.) 

In commenting on 1st Peter iii, 21, he says: 
"Thus immersion,^^ says Peter, "saves us, not by 
cleansing the body from its filth, but the conscience 
from its guilt.^^ (Christian System, p. 215.) Here 
Mr. Campbell flatly contradicts the apostle Paul, 
who affirms that the conscience is cleansed from its 
guilt, neither by immersion nor washing of the body; 
but by the " sprinkling of the heart !" No contra- 
diction could be more complete than the contradiction 
here between Paul and Mr. Campbell, as to how the 
conscience is cleansed from guilt. One affirms that 
it is done by " sprinkling the heart," the other that 
it is done by "the immersion of the body J" 

In the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Holy 
Spirit applies the merit of Christ's death to the soul, 
by which sin is pardoned and the sense of guilt 



WATER A SYMBOL, 41 

removed from the conscience, and this is called 
^^ sprinkling the blood of Jesus Christ/^ by Peter (1 
Peter i, 2), and by Paul in this place, " having our 
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience/^ Having 
the heart purified by ^^ sprinkling/^ the body is then 
washed in token of this inward purification; thus 
baptism sustains unquestionably in this passage the 
relation to purification from sin, of an outward em- 
blem of this inward spiritual cleansing. This fixes the 
relation of baptism to remission of sins and spiritual 
cleansing throughout the whole New Testament ; for 
here it is positively affirmed that the conscience is 
purified from guilt by '^ sprinkling the heart/^ and 
not by ^Svashiug the body/^ or by baptism. 

There is here unquestionably reference to the law 
of purgation from guilt, and the ceremonial cleansing 
which followed, as there is throughout this epistle to 
the services under the law of Moses. The priest 
sprinkled the blood of atonement to remove guilt, 
and then washed in token of the purification received 
through the blood of sprinkling; so Jesus Christ, our 
Great High Priest, by the Holy Spirit, sprinkles our 
hearts with his own blood, purging away our guilt, 
and then we receive baptism in token of this inward 
purification. 

The very same relation between the purification 
of the conscience and baptism is maintained by Peter 
(1 Peter iii, 21) : '^ The like figure whereunto baptism 
doth also now save us (not the putting away of the 

4 



42 BAPTISMAL REMISSION, 

filth of the fleshy but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ/^ 
Now let us note here : 

1. Peter affirms that baptism does m some sense 
save us, ^^ by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'^ 

2. In the parenthetical reading he tells us (1) how 
it does .not save us ; and (2) how it does save us. It 
does not save us by ^^ putting away the filth of the 
flesh/^ Now we ask: ^^ What does Peter mean by 
^ the filth of the flesh ?^ ^^ He can mean but one of 
two things. He must mean either (1) literal dirt on 
the body, or (2) moral pollution on the soul. He 
can mean nothing else. Now, which does he mean ? 
Mr. Campbell, as we have seen, says he means literal 
dirt on the body. But can we believe that the wash- 
ing of ^^ the body from its filth/^ or dirt, could be 
styled by Peter salvation, or a saving of us? Yet he 
is here talking of salvation by baptism, not wash- 
ing dirt from the body by baptism. (3) Were 
the persons to whom Peter addressed this epistle in 
danger of misunderstanding the nature of salvation to 
such an extent that he had to explain to them, by a 
parenthetical reading, that salvation did not mean the 
washing of the dirt from their bodies? Yet, this in- 
terpretation necessarily involves the idea that the 
inspired apostle feared that these Christians to whom 
•he wrote, and who had themselves received the per- 
sonal knowledge of salvation, through the remission 
of sins and the regeneration of their hearts, might 



WATER A SYMBOL, 43 

come to the conclusion that all there was in their sal- 
vation was the washing of a little dirt from their 
bodies^ and he must explain to them that this was 
not what he meant by salvation. (4) But baptism, 
however performed, Avhether by sprinkling, pouring, 
or immersion, does not wash the literal dirt from the 
body, and no one could for a moment suppose that it 
was designed for any such purpose, or could save in 
any such sense ; and for the inspired apostle to assure 
the Christians to whom he wrote in the most solemn 
manner that baptism did not save them by doing 
what every one knew it did not and could not do, 
would have been the veriest trifling. (5) The w^ord 
used by Peter (apothesis), here translated " putting 
away,^^ does not mean '' to wash ^^ or " to wash away/^ 
The idea of wash is not in the word, nor is it in the 
passage. It is the same word which is used by Peter 
(2 Peter i, 14), when he says: 

'' Knowing that shortly I must put off this my 
tabernacle.^^ Here it means to ^^put off^^ or lay 
aside the body, and in 1 Peter iii, 21, it means the 
same thing; that is, to '^ put oif^^ or " lay aside,^^ not 
"the filth of the flesh. ^^ Both times it is used by the 
same writer, and in the same sense. 

Greenfield defines it: ^^A putting off, or away, 
laying aside.^^ 

Parkhurst defines it : ^^A putting away or off.^^ 

Liddell and Scott define it: "A laying away or 
by, laying up in store.^^ 



44 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

Not one of them gives the meaning of wash or a 
washing away. This idea is not in the definitions of 
the word given by the lexicons^ and is not in its use 
in the New Testament or elswhere. Had -^ washing 
away^^ been the thought in the mind of the apostle, 
" apolusis,'^ from ^^ apoloito/^ would have been used, 
which is defined by Liddell and Scott, '^A washing 
off, ablutionJ^ 

This is the w^ord used by Ananias to Paul (Acts 
xxii, 16): ^^And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and 
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord/^ And in 1 Cor. vi, 11 : ^^And 
such were some of you ; but ye are washed.^^ Had 
Peter been speaking of washing away either dirt or 
sm, he would have used this word, which is the one 
always used to express this idea, and not apothesis^ 
which has not the idea of wash in it, and which is 
never used to express the idea of washing. These 
facts prove conclusively that Peter is not here speak- 
ing of washing dirt from the body. 

3. He does mean by the expression, ^^ the filth of 
the flesh," moral pollution, or sin. (1) The terms 
^^ sarx,'^ or " sarkos,'^ we know, is often used in the 
New Testament to mean the carnal or unregenerate 
mind; and ^^ the filth of the flesh" in this sense can 
only mean sin, or moral pollution, proceeding from the 
unregenerate heart. As examples of the use of the term 
sarx (flesh), where it has this meaning: Rom. viii, 1-4, 
6-9; Col. ii, 11; lPeteriv,2; 2 Peter x, 18 ; 2 Peter ii, 



WATER A SYMBOL. 45 

10-18. (2) The word rupos, here translated^/^A^ occurs 
nowhere else in the New Testament^ but in classic usage 
it means both literal filth and moral pollution, and is 
so defined by Liddell and Scott, Parkhurst, and Green- 
field. In this passage it unquestionably means moral 
pollution ; for men are saved, not by removing dirt 
from the body, but sin from the soul. (3) Its de- 
rivative, rupoOy is used twice in the New Testament 
in the same verse Rev. xxii, 11, ^^and he which is 
FILTHY, let him be filthy still ;^^ and it unques- 
tionably means moral pollution or filth. 

4. Its kindred ruparia, is used but once (James i, 
21) : '' Wherefore, lay apart all filthiness and super- 
fluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the 
engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.'^ 
There can be no controversy here as to the meaning 
of this word; all admit it means moral filth or 
pollution. 

The conclusion is irresistible, that ^^ the filth of the 
flesh ^^ in this passage means moral pollution, and not 
literal dirt. Having established this fact, this passage 
is a direct and positive affirmation that baptism does 
not put away sin. Language could not be more ex- 
plicit than the language here used. With this inter- 
pretation of the passage, the reason for inserting the 
parenthetical reading is apparent. No one was ever 
liable to believe that baptism ^^ saves us ^^ by washing 
the literal dirt from our bodies ; but the whole history 
of the Church proves that men are constantly liable 



46 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

to suppose that baptism ^^ saves us^^ by ^Svasbing 
away ^^ sin from tbe soul; hence Peter put in this 
parenthetical reading to guard against this error by 
positively affirming that it does not ^^save us^^ by 
^^ putting away sin.'^ 

5. But if there is any doubt still lingering in the 
mind as to the meaning of this passage, the latter 
clause of the parenthetical reading will settle it : ^^But 
the answer of a good conscience/^ Here note that 
baptism does not make the conscience good — does not 
give or secure a good conscience; but it is ^' the 
answer of a good conscience.^^ If it is, as Peter affirms, 
^^ the answer of a good conscience/' then it does not 
make the conscience good ^^ by cleansing it from its 
guilt/^ as Mr. Campbell affirms it does. The w^ord 
eperotema, here translated answer, occurs nowhere 
else in the New Testament, but eperotao occurs fifty- 
eight times, and is used always in the sense of asking 
a question. Liddell and Scott define ejoerotema ^' a 
question. ^^ 

Greenfield defines it : ^^ An interrogation, question; 
in New Testament, answer, promise, engagement, pro- 
fession (1 Peter iii, 21).^^ 

Parkhurst defines it: ^^An asking; or rather, an 
answer or promise in consequence of beiny asked.'' 

Now, in whatever sense we understand the apostle 
to use this word, the result is the same. If we un- 
derstand it in the sense of " to ask," then baptism 
does not give the good conscience ; that is, it does not 



WATER A SYMBOL. 47 

j3urge the conscience from its guilt; but as the symbol 
of this inward purification, it asks for that which it 
can not confer. Baptism can not confer a good con- 
science and ask for it at the same time. If baptism 
is '^ the asking for a good conscience/^ then it is as 
plain as the noonday^s sun that it can not confer a 
good conscience. A man asks for that which he does 
not possess, and therefore can not give ; and if bap- 
tism is ^' the asking ^^ for a good conscience, then it 
does not and can not make the conscience good. If 
we understand it in the sense of an ^^ answer/^ as our 
translators have rendered it, the result is the same ; 
for baptism can not be ^^the ansiver of a good con- 
science,^' and at the same time give or secure a ^^ good 
conscience. ^^ The ^^ good conscience ^^ — that is, remis- 
sion of sins and the purification of the heart — is ob- 
tained somehow through the resurrection of Christ, 
" who was delivered for our offenses, and raised again 
for our justification f' and baptism, as the divinely 
appointed symbol of this inward purification, is ^^ the 
answer of this good conscience.^^ 

Here, then, Peter affirms that ^^ baptism doth now 
save us, kot by putting away siks,^^ but by ^^ an- 
swering^^ to that inward spiritual cleansing, which is 
accomplished in us by the Holy Spirit applying the 
blood of Christ, by which alone the conscience can be 
purged from its guilt. 



48 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 



CHAPTER VI. 

STATEMENT OF PROPOSITION: TWO BAPTISMS— ONE 
REAL, THE OTHER SYMBOIvICAI,— ONE THE SOUI, 
WITH THE HOLY GHOST, THE OTHER THE BODY 
WITH WATER— ONE PERFORMED BY MAN, THE 
OTHER BY GOD. 

The PROPOSITION which I affirm, and which I 
shall endeavor to prove in the following pages, is, 
that water baptism is neither the new birth, nor the 
condition of the remission of sins; but that faith in 
Jesus Christ is the one and sole condition of the 
justification of the penitent sinner. 

There are two baptisms among the principles of 
the doctrine of Christ. 

In Hebrews vi, 1, 2, Paul says: ^' Therefore leav- 
ing the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go 
unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of re- 
pentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 
of the doctrine of baptisms, and laying on of hands, 
and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judg- 
ment/^ Here we have enumerated among the princi- 
ples of the doctrine of Christ, ^^ the doctrine of bap- 
tisms,^^ consequently, there must be more than one 
baptism among ^^ the principles of the doctrine of 



STATEMENT OF PROPOSITION. 49 

Christ ;^^ principles which, like ^^ repentance, faith, 
the resurrection of the dead, and eternal jadgment,^^ 
are permanent and abiding doctrines or principles of 
the gospel. The plural, " baptisms/' makes it certain 
that there are two baptisms among the doctrines or 
principles of the gospel, which are permanent in the 
Church, and which shall never cease while the Church 
remains on earth. Now, if we can find out what these 
two baptisms are, the place they each occupy in the 
system of gospel doctrine, and the relations they sus- 
tain to each other, there will be no difficulty in ascer- 
taining the design of water baptism. 

John the Baptist said : ^^ I indeed baptize you with 
water unto repentance; but there cometh one after me 
who is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy 
to unloose; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost 
and fire.'' (Matt, iii, 11.) 

Jesus said: ^^For John truly baptized with water; 
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not 
many days hence.'' 

Here we . have the tioo baptisms, which are per- 
manently incorporated among the principles of the 
doctrine of Christ, — ^one of water, the other of the 
Holy Ghost; one administered by man on the body, 
the other administered by the Lord Jesus on the soul. 
These two baptisms, of course, can not be adminis- 
tered for the same purpose — they must be administered 
for different ends. We know that the advocates of 
baptismal remission deny that the baptism of the 

5 



50 BAPTISMAL BEMISSION. 

Holy Ghost is permanent in the Church, and claim 
that it pertained only to the apostolic age, and that it 
was always accompanied by the gift of tongues ; in 
short, that it was one of the miraculous gifts that per- 
tained to the apostles, and that passed away with them. 
But this plea is unsupported by the Word of God. 
There is not a hint in the words of John the Baptist, 
Christ, or the apostles, that the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost, promised the multitudes by John, and promised 
by Christ to his disciples, and received by them for 
the first time in its fullness on the day of Pentecost, 
should be confined to the apostles or the apostolic 
age. On the contrary, the language used naturally 
implies the permanence of this baptism in the Church 
of Christ. 

John said : ^^ I indeed baptize you with water. 
. . . He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. '^ 
Here it is plain that John promised tlie baptism of 
the Holy Ghost to the same persons he baptized with 
water, — it is not a promise of a special blessing to a 
special class of believers, but to the whole multitude 
who should receive Christ. More than this, it implies 
that while John^s mission was only to baptize with 
water, the mission of Christ should be especially to 
baptize with the Holy Ghost; that while John bap- 
tized his disciples with water only, Christ should 
baptize his disciples with the Holy Ghost. This fact 
is made prominent by John in his addresses to the 
multitudes who flocked to his baptism. In Mark i, 8, 



STATEMENT OF PROPOSITIOK 51 

he says: ^^ I indeed have baptized you with water: 
bat he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. ^^ In 
Luke iii, 16^ we read: ^^ John answered, saying unto 
them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one 
mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes 
I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost and with fire.^^ In John i, 38, 
he says: ^^ And I knew him not: but he that sent me 
to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon 
whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and re- 
maining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with 
the Holy Ghost/^ 

1. In all these passages John represents the special 
work of Christ to be that of baptizing with the Holy 
Ghost. He draws the contrast between his baptism 
of water and Christ^s baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
As he came specifically to baptize with water, so 
Christ came specifically to baptize with the Holy Ghost. 

2. The promise of Jesus to his disciples contains 
no such limitation, while his general teaching in re- 
gard to the gift of the Holy Ghost to his disciples, 
throughout the whole gospel, is that it should be the 
common heritage of all believers. 

3. In the fulfillment of the Master^s promise, ^' Ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence,^^ on the day of Pentecost, the whole body 
of believers present, amounting to one hundred and 
twenty, received this baptism — apostles, laymen, and 
women alike received it. 



52 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

4. Peter afBrraed that this fulfillment of our 
Lord^s promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost was 
also the fulfillment of JoePs prophecy: ^^But this is 
that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it 
shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will 
pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and 
your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men 
shall see visions and your old men shall dream 
dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens 
I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they 
shall prophesy.'^ 

Now, it is as clear as language can make it, that 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which the Church of 
Christ received on that day, and which was the ful- 
fillment alike of the promise of Jesus and the proph- 
ecy of Joel, is permanently to abide in the Church, 
and to be the common heritage of all who believe in 
Jesus. No other meaning can be given to this passage, 
without doing the greatest violence to the language 
used. The prophecy which began to be fulfilled on 
that day, is still being fulfilled, and will be to the 
latest generation of the saved ; and the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost received by the disciples in '^ the upper 
room'^ on the day of Pentecost is still being received 
by believers, and will be as long as men receive Jesus 
Christ by faith. 

5. Having established the fact that tliere are two 
baptisms permanently abiding in the Church, among 
"the principles of the doctrine of Christ,^^ the one 



STATEMENT OF PROPOSITION. 53 

the baptism of the soul by the Holy Ghost, adminis- 
tered by Christ, purifyiDg the heart, and cleansing the 
soul from sin, and the other by water, administered 
by a human administrator upon the body, it follows, 
with all the force of demonstration, that the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost is the real baptism, while that of 
w^ater is but the symbolical ; the real baptism cleanses 
and purifies the soul, while the symbolical — that of 
water applied to the body — takes its place in the economy 
of the gospel, only as an outward sign of this inward 
spiritual cleansing, received by the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost. 

6. Having established the proper Scriptural rela- 
tion between these two baptisms, which hold their 
places permanently among '^ihe principles of the doc- 
trine of Christ,^^ it follows inevitably also, that wher- 
ever a saving efficacy is ascribed to baptism in the 
New Testament, it must apply to the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, which alone has saving efficacy, and not 
to water baptism, which only symbolizes the saving 
efficacy of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

7. Paul expressly declares that it is by the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost that we are put into Christ : '^ For 
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether 
toe he Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; 
and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.'^ 
(1 Cor. xii, 13.) 

Paul is here speaking of the one body of Christ 
which is made up of all true believers, who are 



54 BAPTISMAL EEMISSION. 

brought into^ or made members of, that one body by 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Now let us note : 

First. In this passage it is affirmed that we are all 
made members of the one body of Christ by being 
baptized into it, by the one Spirit; consequently this 
baptism of the Spirit is performed upon every member 
of the body of Christ, and none enter that body 
^^ whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or 
female,^^ except by this baptism of the Holy Spirit, This 
settles at once and forever the question as to whether 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost was the privilege of 
the few, and only for the purpose of conferring 
miraculous gifts, by proving that it is the privilege 
of all believers, and that it is performed upon all be- 
lievers to constitute them members of Christ^s body. 

Second. Paul does not say, ^^For by one water 
we are all baptized into one body f' but he says, 
^^hj one Spirit.^^ It is not the baptism of water he 
is talking about, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 

Third. He affirms that we are all made to drink 
into the one Spirit, by which we are baptized into 
the one body. 

Fourth. Having proved that Paul affirms that we 
are made members of the one body of Christ by the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit, it follows necessarily that 
whenever he speaks of being ^^put into^^ Christ, 
''buried with him/' or ''in him, by, in, or through 
baptism,^' that he must be speaking of the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit. 



;S* TA TEMEIS T OF PR OPOSITION. 55 

The advocates of baptismal remission claim that 
when Paul says^ ^^ For by one Spirit are we all bap- 
tized into one body/^ he does not mean what he says ; 
but he means that it is ^^ by the direction of one Spirit 
that we are all baptized into one body V^ But this at- 
tempt is utterly futile^ for it is not by the direction 
of '^ the one Spirit ^^ that we are baptized with water, 
but by the express command of the Lord Jesus. 
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same 
person in the Godhead, and the specific acts and 
commands of the one are never ascribed to the other. 
Our Lord^ in his own proper person, instituted and 
commanded the baptism of water, and it is by his 
express command or direction that we are baptized 
with water, and not by the ^^ direction^^ of the Holy 
Spirit inspiring either prophet or apostle. 

2, But if it is by the '^direction of one Spirit that 
we are all baptized/^ then it is by " the direction of 
one Spirit that we are all made to drink V^ But 
what are we made to drink in or of by the direction 
of ^^ the one Spirit?" This shows the absolute ab- 
surdity of this interpretation of this passage. No, 
Paul is not here talking about being baptized by 
the direction of ^' one Spirit/^ or being '' made to 
drink by the ' direction ^ of one Spirit ;^^ but he is 
talking of b ing baptized by the Holy Spirit, and of 
drinking into the same Holy Spirit b)^ which the 
soul is baptized into the body of Christ. No art, no 
sophistry, can evade the force of this passage, and, 



56 BAPTISMAL REMISSION, 

while it stands in the Word of God^ it stands as an 
eternal refutation of the doctrine that the penitent 
believer is made a member of Christ's body or put 
into Christ by water baptism. It also establishes the 
fact^ beyond controversy^ that all believers in all ages 
receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and by it are 
made members of the one body of Christ. 

There are three other passages in PauPs writings 
where he ascribes the same results to baptism that he 
does in this, in all of which we are compelled to un- 
derstand him to be speaking of the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, or make him flatly contradict himself by 
affirming in one place that we are put into Christ by 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and in another that 
we are put into him by the baptism of water. Paul 
is not guilty of such self-contradictions, and hence, in 
all of these passages, he must necessarily be speaking 
of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which he here 
affirms puts us into the one body of Christ. It is a 
noteworthy fact that in none of these passages does he 
speak of water in connection with baptism, but in 
them all he ascribes to the baptism of which he is 
speaking the same effects or results he ascribes to the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit in this passage. 

In Galatians iii, 26-29, he says : " For ye are all 
the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, 
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male 



STATEMENT OF PROPOSITION. 5"^ 

nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And 
if ye be Christ^s^ then are ye Abraham's seed; and 
heirs according to the promise.'^ 
Now, note that he here aflSrms: 

1. That these Galatians had ^^been baptized into 
Christ/^ 

2. That they had ^^ put on Christ '' by being ^^ bap- 
tized into '^ him. 

Now, we ask by what baptism does Paul say we 
are ^^ baptized into Christ ?'' He gives the answer 
himself: ^^For by one Spirit are we all baptized into 
one body/' It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
Hence in this passage he is and must be speaking of 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and not the baptism 
of water. 

In Romans vi, 1-6, he says : ^^ What shall we say 
then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may 
abound ? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead 
to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so 
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were 
baptized into his death ? Therefore, we are buried with 
him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was 
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of life. For 
if we have been planted together in the likeness of 
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur- 
rection : knowing this, that our old man is crucified 
with him; that the body of sin might be destroyed, 
that henceforth we should not serve sin.'^ 



58 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

1. Paul here affirms that the Roman Christians 
were ^^ baptized into Jesus Christ.^^ 

2. That being thus ^^ baptized into Jesus Christ/^ 
they were ^^ baptized into his death.^^ 

3. That they ^^ were buried with him by baptism 
into death f^ that is, into the benefits of his death. 

4. That being raised up out of the death of sin by 
this baptism they *^ should walk in newness of life/^ 

5. That having been " planted together in the 
likeness of his death '^ by this baptism, they should 
also ^' be in the likeness of his resurrection/^ 

6. That they were ^^ crucified with him^^ by this 
baptism, " that the body of sin might be destroyed/^ 

Now, we inquire, what baptism is it which Paul 
affirms puts us into Christ, and confers upon us all the 
benefits of his death ? Is it the baptism of water, or 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost? Again the answer 
comes : " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into 
one body, and have all been made to drink into one 
Spirit/^ It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which 
puts us into Christ, and confers upon us all these 
spiritual benefits; hence it must be this baptism of 
the Holy Spirit of which he is speaking. There is 
no mention of water in the passage, and no hint that 
he is speaking of water baptism ; but, on the other 
hand, the effects ascribed to this baptism are those 
which he affirms elsewhere pertain only to the bap- 
tism of the Holy Spirit. 

This proves conclusively that in this passage he is 



STATEMENT OF PROPOSITION, 59 

speaking exclusively of the baptism of the Holy- 
Spirit^ by which we are put into Christ and made 
members of his body, and not of the baptism of 
water, by which this great spiritual change is only 
symbolized. 

In Colossians ii, 10-12, we read : ^' And ye are 
complete in him, which is the head of all principality 
and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with 
the circumcision made without hands, in putting off 
the body of the sin of the flesh by the circumcision 
of Christ ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
ye are risen with him through the faith of the opera- 
tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead/^ 

In addition to the fact, which runs through all 
these passages, that Paul here ascribes to the baptism 
of which he speaks effects which, he declares in 1 Co- 
rinthians xii, 13, result alone from the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, and which of itself is sufficient to prove 
conclusively that he is here speaking of that baptism, 
and not the baptism of water, we note the following 
facts stated by him in this passage : 

1. He affirms that the Christians at Colosse were 
*^ circumcised with the circumcision made without 
hands,^^ which is ^' the circumcision of Christ/^ 

2* He affirms that it was by this ^^ circumcision ^^ 
that they had put " off the body of the sins of the 
flesh/^ 

3. It is evident from the language used that the 
^^ circumcision ^^ by which the ^^ body of the sins of 



60 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

the flesh'' was put off, and the ^'baptism'' in which 
the Christians were '' buried with him/' are one and 
the same thing; for ''the body of the sins of the 
flesh'' could not first be ''put off"" by the "circum- 
cision made tvithout hands/' and then be remitted by 
a baptism performed with hands. If, then, "the cir- 
cumcision of Christ/' by which "the body of the 
sins of the flesh " was " put off/' was " made without 
hands " — that is, was spiritual and not physical— then 
the baptism, which is most certainly the same thing, 
was performed " without hands /' that is, was spiritual, 
and not physical. 

4. In Romans ii, 28, 29, Paul affirms that the real 
circumcision "is of the heart, in spirit." "For he is 
not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that 
circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he 
is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is 
that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, 
whose praise is not of men, but of God." 

Now, if the circumcision of the Jew was " that 
of the heart, in the spirit/' certainly the circumcision 
of Christ can not be that of "the letter, in the flesh;" 
but must be " of the heart, in the spirit " also. 

Now, whether the advocates of baptismal remis- 
sion will admit that the " circumcision " of verse 11 
and the baptism of verse 12 are one and the same or 
not, this passage effectually refutes their doctrine that 
sins are remitted or washed away in baptism; for 
Paul here expressly affirms that " the body of the 



STATEMENT OF PROPOSITION. 61 

sins of the flesh ^^ is " put off/^ remitted, or washed 
away by an inward spiritual process, which he calls 
^Hhe circumcision made without hands ^^ — ^^ the cir- 
cumcision of Christ. ^^ If sins are remitted, put off, 
or washed away by an inward spiritual process, 
performed ^^ witliout hands,^^ then it is manifest to all 
men that they can not be remitted, put off, or washed 
away by an outward physical process, performed with 
hands. Whatever view may be taken of the relation 
the circumcision of verse 11 has to the baptism of 
verse 12, this passage forever settles the fact that sins 
are not remitted, put off, or washed away in or by 
water baptism ; but by the inward cleansing power of 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, here called the cir- 
cumcision of Christ, and which is declared to be made 
'^without hands y^ that is, not physical. 

5. The character of the resurrection here fixes the 
character of the burial effected by the baptism, and to 
which it stands in antithesis. ^^ Buried with him in 
baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through 

THE FAITH OF THE OPERATION OF GoD.^^ The rCS- 

urrection here is unquestionably spiritual, and accom- 
plished by FAITH. But the resurrection in water 
baptism, performed by immersion, is physical, and ac- 
complished by the physical power of the administrator. 
The resurrection being spiritual, the burial to which 
it stands in antithesis must be spiritual, and so must 
the baptism also be spiritual, by which the burial and 
resurrection are accomplished. It is evident, then. 



62 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

that the baptism in this passage is the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, and not the baptism of water. 

The great difficulty in the way of the advocates 
of baptismal remission, in properly understanding all 
these passages of the Holy Scriptures, arises from 
their denial of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Having 
repudiated Paul's statement that there are baptisms 
among the princij^les of the doctrine of Christ, and 
holding that there is but one baptism, that of water, 
they must, of course, interpret every passage in the 
writings of the apostles which speak of baptism as 
referring to water baptism. The moment that we 
accept the doctrine of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, 
and Paul that there are two baptisms — one of water, 
the other of the Holy Spirit, the one purifying the 
soul from sin, the other the application of water to 
the body in token of that inward spiritual purification — 
the difficulties all vanish, and the Word of God 
becomes harmonious and consistent with itself. But 
the moment we reject this plain and unmistakable 
doctrine of the Word of God, we make the teaching 
of Christ and the apostles, in regard to remission of 
sins and spiritual cleansing, a bundle of contradic- 
tions — destroy the spirituality of the gospel, give it a 
materialistic basis, and constitute the sacraments the 
only channel through which grace and forgiveness 
of sins can reach us. 

I know that the interpretation here given to Ro- 
mans vi, 1, 6, and Colossians ii, 11, 12, is not the one 



STATEMENT OF PROPOSITION. 63 

commonly given by commentators, which is that in 
these passages there is an allusion to the ancient man- 
ner of baptism by immersion. But after a most 
patient and careful examination of the subject, I was 
compelled, years ago, to abandon the commonly re- 
ceived interpretation of these passages, and adopt the 
one I have given in the preceding pages. Ancient as 
the practice of baptizing by immersion may have 
been, after a most thorough investigation of the sub- 
ject during the past thirty-eight years, I have found 
no evidence that it was so ancient as the days of the 
apostles. 

But whatever may have been the mode of bap- 
tism practiced in the days of Paul, these passages fur- 
nish conclusive internal evidence that they do not 
refer to water baptism at all, and the trouble with 
Biblical expositors on this point has been, they have 
not given the baptism of the Holy Ghost its proper 
place in the economy of the gospel. As we have 
already shown, when once it is proved that in the 
New Testament we have tioo baptisms — one of water 
and the other of the Holy Ghost, the one cleansing 
the soul from sin, and baptizing us into the body of 
Christ, the other only symbolizing that spiritual 
cleansing — it follows irresistibly that whenever we have 
a baptism spoken of that cleanses the soul, puts us into 
Christ, buries us in or with him, it is, and must be, 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and not the baptism 
of water. It seems to me the dullest intellect can 



64 BAPTISMAL RE3nSSI0N. 

not help seeing that this is the case. But while the 
interpretation which I have given these passages is 
not the one usually given them, I do not stand alone 
by any means. Prof. Moses Stuart, one of the 
most thoroughly learned Biblical scholars this country 
has ever produced, takes the same view I do of these 
passages. In his commentary on Romans vi, 1, 6, 

he says: 

" Most commentators have maintained that sune- 
taphemen has here a necessary reference to the mode 
of literal baptism, which they say was by immersion; 
and this, they think, affords grounds for the employ- 
ment of the image used by the apostle, because im- 
mersion (under water) may be compared to a burial 
(under the earth). 

^^ It is difficult, perhaps, to procure a patient re- 
hearing for this subject, so long regarded as being out 
of fair dispute. Nevertheless, as my own conviction 
is not, after protracted and repeated examinations, 
accordant here with that of commentators in general, 
I feel constrained briefly to state my reasons. 

^^ The first is, that in the verse before us there is a 
plain antithesis; one so plain that it is impossible to 
overlook it. If now sunetaphemen [we are buried] is 
to be interpreted in a physical way, i. e. as meaning 
baptism in a physical sense, where is the correspond- 
ing physical idea in the opposite part of the antithesis 
or comparison? Plainly there is no such physical idea 
or reference in the other part of the antithesis. The 



statem:ent of proposition. 65 

resurrection there spoken of is entirely a moral, 
spiritual one; for it is one which Christians have 
already experienced^ during the present life ; by com- 
paring verses 5, 11, below. . . . 

^^If we turn to the passage in Colossians ii, 12 
(which is altogether parallel with the verse under ex- 
amination, and has very often been quoted by 
polemic writers on the subject of baptism), we shall 
there find more conclusive reason still, to argue as 
above, respecting the nature of the antithesis pre- 
sented. We have been buried with him (Christ) by 
baptism. What now is the ^ opposite^ of this? 
What is the kind of resurrection from this grave in 
which Christians have been buried ? The apostle 
tells us : ^ We have risen with him [Christ], by faith 
wrought by the power of God, who raised him [Christ] 
from the dead/ Here there is a resurrection by faith; 
i, 6., a spiritual moral one. Why, then, should we look 
for a physical meaning in the antithesis? If one 
part of the antithesis is to be construed in a manner 
entirely moral or spiritual, why should we not con- 
strue the other in like manner? To understand 
sunetaphemen, then, of a literal burial under water is to 
understand it in a manner which the laws of interpre- 
tation appear to forbid.^^ (Com. on Eom.^pp. 252, 253.) 

Again he says : " The being baptized into his death 
is, therefore, an internal, moral, spiritual thing, 
of which the external rite of baptism is only a symbol; 
for the relation symbolized by baptism is, in its own 

6 



66 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

nature, spiritual and moral The participation in 
THE DEATH OF CHRIST, of whicli Paul here speaks, 
is surely something more than what is external ; it is 
of a MORAL or SPIRITUAL nature, of which the ex- 
ternal rite is merely a symbol/^ (Ibid.^ p. 252.) 



BORN OF WATER. 67 



CHAPTER VII. 

BORN OF WATER, AND THE WASHING OF 
REGENERATION. 

Haying established incontrovertibly in the pre- 
ceding chapters the fact that water is the standing 
symbol of the Holy Spirit^ throughout the Scriptures 
of the Old and New Testaments, and that the purifi- 
cation of the body by w^ater is the standing symbol of 
spiritual cleansing — that the baptism of water is but 
the symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit — I 
might rest the argument here. But the advocates of 
baptismal remission need " line upon line, and precept 
upon precept/^ to make them understand the spiritual 
nature of the religion of the Lord Jesus, and the re- 
lation the oatward forms of Christianity sustain to its 
inward spiritual life. Hence we must follow them 
step by step, and rescue the Scriptures, passage by pas- 
sage, from the perversions of their materialistic in- 
terpretations. 

We have already seen, in Chapter III, that Mr. 
Campbell teaches that immersion is regeneration, or 
the new birth ; that ^^ immersion is the act of being 
born f^ that no man can be '' born of that which he 
receives ;^^ consequently, in his system there is no 



68 BAPTISMAL BE MISSION. 

birth of the Spirit at all. He says : ^^ A man can not 
be born of that which he receives.^^ The Holy Spirit 
is received, therefore no man ever was or ever can be 
born of the Holy Spirit. All that Jesus means by 
being ^^born again/^ ^^born of the Spirit/' etc., is im- 
mersion, and nothing else. In the light of these state- 
ments, let us examine the expression '' born of water 
and of the Spirit.'' 

It is a remarkable fact that, while a spiritual birth 
is spoken of throughout the New Testament under 
different forms of expression, ^^born of God," "born 
of the Spirit," "born from above,'^ "born again," 
etc., "born of water" occurs but once in the whole 
gospel record — John iii, 5. A ruler of the Jews had 
come to Jesus to inquire concerning his doctrine^ and 
Jesus had announced to him the great truth : " Ex- 
cept a man be born again he can not see the kingdom 
of God." Nicodemus could not understand what 
Jesus meant by being born again, and in astonishment 
he asks: "How can a man be born when he is old? 
Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb 
and be born ?" Jesus then explains to him that he is not 
talking about a physical, but a spiritual birth, and 
illustrates his meaning by a figure with which the 
mind of every Jew was familiar, and says : " Except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not 
enter into the kingdom of God." Dropping the figure 
or illustration, Jesus proceeds : " That which is born 
of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the 



BORN OF VfATEE. 69 

Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee^ Ye 
must be born again. The wind bloweth where it 
listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not 
tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth ; so is every 
one that is born of the Spirit.^^ Nicodemus still could 
not understand what Jesus meant by being born of 
the Spirit^ and he asked again in astonishment : ^^How 
can these things be V^ Can it be possible that our 
adorable Lord could have spoken of so simple a thing 
as being immersed under a figure so difficult to under- 
stand on the part of his auditor ? When^ according 
to Mr. Campbell^ he dropped the figure and spoke 
plainly of immersion as a ^^ birth of water/^ Nicode- 
mus still could not understand it. Surely, there is no 
such mystery about immersion that a learned ^^ master 
in IsraeP^ could not understand how a man could be 
immersed! We marvel the more at the ignorance of 
Nicodemus, when we remember that, according to Mr. 
Campbell, '' John, the immerser/' had been showing to 
all the ^^ masters in Israel '' how easy and simple a 
thing it was to be ^^ born of water ^^ — that is, to be 
immersed — for at least ten or twelve months before this 
conversation took place ! With these facts before 
him, can any man be so lost to common sense as to 
believe that by ^^ born again,^^ '^ born of water and of 
the Spirit/^ and '^ born of the Spirit,^^ in this passage, 
Jesus meant only being immersed ? 

It is evident, then, that Jesus did not mean bap- 
tism when he spoke of being ^^ born again,^^ ^^ or born 



70 BAPTISMAL REMISSION, 

of the Spirit/- This being the case, if ^^ born of water ^^ 
means baptism^ then baptism and regeneration^ or the* 
new birth, are not one and the same thing. Demon- 
stration itself could not be clearer than this. If 
^^ born of water ^^ means baptism, then ^' born of 
water ^^ and ^^ born of the Spirit ^^ are tw^o distinct 
births, and a man '' must be born again ^' twice, or he 
can not enter into the kingdom of God. 

The new birth is a spiritual transformation, and 
not a physical action. It is the regeneration of the 
heart, and not the washing of the body ; and, because 
of its spiritual nature, Nicodemus could not compre- 
hend it. When he failed to understand what the 
Savior meant, he introduced the well-known symbol 
of spiritual purification, water, to illustrate what he 
meant by being born of the Spirit. 

*^ Born of water ^^ does not mean baptism. The 
expression ^^ born of water and of the Spirit ^^ does 
not mean that there are two births necessary to enter 
into the kingdom of God. '' Born of water ^^ is used 
simply as an illustration of the meaning of ^^ born of 
the Spirit.^^ We have an example of this method of 
illustration in Matthew iii, 11 : ^^ He shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost and with fire.^^ This does not 
mean that there are two baptisms performed by Christ 
on those who accept him, but one — the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost — like fire, consuming sin, and filling 
the soul with spiritual heat and life. The copulative 
conjunction kai (and) is used in both passages, and 



BORN OF WATER, 71 

questionably means the same thing in both. To be 
" born/^ then^ of " water and of the Holy Spirit/^ is 
to be regenerated and purified by the Holy Spirit^ as 
water applied to the body as a religious rite makes it 
legally or ceremonially clean. 

In Titus iii, 5, 6, we read : '' Not by works of 
righteousness which we have done^ but according to 
his mercy he saved us^ by the washing of regenera- 
tion and renewing of the Holy Ghost^ which he 
shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our 
Savior.^^ 

It is contended by the advocates of baptismal re- 
generation and baptismal remission that " the wash- 
ing of regeneration ^^ in this passage is baptism^ and 
that Paul here affirms that we are saved by " the 
bath of regeneration ;'^ that is, by baptism. But we 
must not forget that Paul ascribes our salvation, not 
to '' works of righteousness which we have done ^^ — 
that is, not to any act or acts of obedience that we 
may have performed — but to " his mercy/^ and that 
mercy is made effectual '' by the washing of regen- 
eration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.^^ We ask : 
Does Paul affirm that the '^ washing of regenera- 
tion ^^ and ^Hhe renewing of the Holy Ghost ^^ are two 
separate and distinct processes or operations, or does 
he mean that they are two features presented to us of 
one process ; the one referring to the cleansing of the 
heart from past sins, washing them away ; the other 
to the renewing of the spiritual nature in the image 



72 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

of the Son of God ? If he means the former, then 
it is certain that baptism, " the washing of regenera- 
tion/^ according to Mr. Campbell, does not save us; 
for that which saves us is '' shed on us,'' But, ac- 
cording to him, baptism is not '' shed on us,'' nor is 
the water shed on us in baptism, but we are plunged 
into it. But Paul is not here speaking of baptism 
at all. There is no reference or allusion to baptism 
in the passage. ''The washing of regeneration and 
the renewing of the Holy Ghost ^^ are one and the 
same thing. " The washing of regeneration " means 
the washing away of past sins by the regenerating 
power of the Holy Spirit applying the merit of the 
blood of Christ to the soul, by which alone sins are 
washed away; while ''the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost " is the creating of the soul anew in Christ 
Jesus, "washing'' and "renewing'' being but parts 
of the one divine process by which w^e are brought 
into the kingdom of God and made heirs of eter- 
nal life. 

But Ephesians v, 25, 26, and Acts xxii, 16, are 
cited by the advocates of baptismal regeneration and 
remission to prove that the Cliurch is cleansed " by the 
washing of water," and that sins are " Avashed away 
in baptism." In the first passage Paul says : " Hus- 
bands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanc- 
tify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
word." In the second, Ananias says : "And now why 



BORN OF WA TER. 73 

tarriest thou ; arise and be baptized and wash away 
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord/^ 

But we ask : " In what sense does Christ cleanse 
the Church ' by the washing of water/ and in what 
sense are sins washed away in baptism V^ 

In Revelation i^ 5, we read : " Unto him that 
loved us and washed us from our sins in his own 
blood/^ And in chapter vii, 13, 14, we read: ^^ And 
one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are 
these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence 
came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. 
And he said to me, These are they which came 
out of great tribulation, and have washed their 
robes and made them w^hite in the blood of the 
Lamb/^ 

Here we have two washings — one of blood, the 
other of w^ater. These two washings are not for the 
same purpose. Sins can not be washed away and the 
Church cleansed by the blood of Christ, and after- 
wards by water. By one of these washings sins are 
really washed away, and the Church is r^a% cleansed ; 
and by the other, sins are only emblematically washed 
away, and the Church is only emblematically cleansed. 
Which is the real and which is the emblematical wash- 
ing? Is the Apocalyptist mistaken when he affirms 
that Christ '^ w^ashed us from our sins in his own 
blood ?'^ Is the elder before the throne mistaken when 
he says the white-robed throng " washed their robes 
and made them white in the blood of the Lamb ?^' 

7 



74 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

Either they are mistaken, or those are mistaken who 
teach that the Church is cleansed in a '' bath of 
water/^ and that sins are washed away in baptism. 
Which shall we believe, the Beloved Disciple and the 
elder before the throne, or the advocates of baptismal 
remission ? 

Mr. Campbell says ^^ Here are two things equally 
incomprehensible — to wash garments white in blood, 
and to wash away sins in water. An efficacy is as- 
cribed to water which it does not possess; and as 
certainly an efficacy is ascribed to blood which it does 
not possess. If blood can whiten or cleanse gar- 
ments, certainly water can wash away sins. There is, 
then, a transferring of the efficacy of blood to water, 
and a transferring of the efficacy of water to blood. ^^ 
(Christianity Restored, pp. 220, 221.) 

If Mr. Campbell had more carefully studied the 
figure used by the Apocalyptist of washing garments 
in blood, he would have been saved this foolish blun- 
der, which led him to ascribe to water the efficacy to 
wash away sin. John does not teach that *^ garments 
are washed and made white in blood ;^^ for in chap- 
ter xix, 8, in speaking of the attire of the Church, the 
^^ wife '^ of the Lamb, he says: ^^Aud to her was 
granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, 
clean and white; for the fine linen is the 

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS.^^ 

Garments washed and made white in the blood of 
the Lamb is only a figure of speocbj rep^cBenting the 



BORN OF WATER. 75 

great truth, that sins are washed away, and the soul 
made righteous and clean in the sight of God, by the 
blood of the Lamb ; for the white robes are " the 
righteousness of saints/^ The Bible nowhere ascribes 
to blood the power to whiten literal garments^ nor to 
water to wash away sins. 



76 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

JESUS NBVKR TAUGHT BAPTISM FOR THE REMIS- 
SION OF SINS, NOR COMMANDED ANY ONE TO BE 
BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, DURING 
THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF HIS PERSONAI, MINIS- 
TRY ON EARTH. 

It does seem to me that the best and surest way 
to find out the gospel method of forgiveness and salva- 
tion, would be to go to the words and acts of the Lord 
Jesus during his personal ministry while here on 
earth. If we can not find the gospel method of for- 
giveness and salvation in the words and acts of Jesus, 
where can we expect to find it? Now, it is a remark- 
able fact, that in all the preaching and teaching of the 
Lord Jesus, there is not a hint or intimation that 
baptism is for the remission of sins. Did Jesus preach 
his own gospel during his personal ministry? If he 
did, then his gospel does not teach baptism for the re- 
mission of sins, and the gospel of baptismal remission 
is ^^ another gospel,^^ and not the gospel of Jesus. 
This is as clear as that two and two make four. 

Our Lord instituted his baptism at the beginning^ 
and not at the end of his personal ministry. His 
apostles practiced it from the time they were called 
to the apostolic office under bis immediate supervis- 



BAPTISM NOT FOR REMISSION. 77 

ion. The great commission did not institute his bap- 
tism any more than it did the preaching of his gospel. 
It simply extended the work of the apostles^ which 
before had been confined to the Jews, to all the world 
Their first commission was to preach the gospel to 
the Jews only, and to baptize those of them who 
should receive Jesus as the Messiah. The second 
embraced all the nations, but it is the same gospel 
and the same baptism. Keeping this fact in mind, 
let us examine the law of pardon or remission of sins, 
as laid down by our Lord himself in his own gospel. 
In John iii, 14-18, Jesus says: ^^ And as Moses 
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must 
the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever be- 
lieveth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life. For God so loved the w^orld, that he gave 
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For 
God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
world; but that the world through him might be 
saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned : 
but he that believeth not is condemned already, 
because he hath not believed in the name of the only 
begotten Son of God.^^ Again he says : ^' Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and 
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, 
and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed 
from death unto life.^^ (John v, 24.) In chapter vi, 
28, 29, we read: "Then said they unto him, What 



78 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

shall we do, that we might work the works of God ? 
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work 
of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent/^ 
In verse 40 he says : ^^ And this is the will of him 
that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and 
believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I 
will raise him up at the last day/^ In verse 47 he 
says: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that be- 
lieveth on me hath everlasting life/^ 

In these passages Jesus affirms a direct and im- 
mediate connection between faith in him and the 
possession of eternal life. To believe in Jesus, is to 
possess eternal life. This is predicated upon faith 
itself, and not upon "an act of faith,^^ or an "act re- 
sulting from faith." He also affirms that condemna- 
tion is removed by believing in him. "He that be- 
lieveth on him is not condemned" — condemnation 
is removed by faith, and not by an act of faith or " an 
act resulting from faith J' If a man is not condemned, 
he is pardoned, justified, and his sins are remitted. 
"We might multiply passages from the words of our 
Lord ; but these are sufficient, and they reflect the 
whole trend of his teachings. 

In exact accord with his teaching, and in illustra- 
tion of it, he forgave sins while he was here on earth, 
upon the condition of simple faith, and not by bap- 
tism. Now, it does seem to me that if we can find 
out the condition or conditions upon which he re- 
mitted sins, we shall find out the gospel method of 



BAPTISM NOT FOR REMISSION. 79 

remission. The first example we have of the forgive- 
ness of sins by our Lord, is recorded in Matt, ix, 
1-7; Mark ii, 1-12; Luke v, 18-26. In Mark's 
account it is said : ^^ When Jesus saw their faith, he 
said to the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven 
thee.'' This man's sins were forgiven on the condi- 
tion of his faith. Christ required nothing more than 
his faith in him. He did not say to Peter: ^^ I see 
this man has faith in me, and has repented of his 
sins, and has confessed me before men, by coming to me 
for healing and forgiveness; take him and wash away 
his sins in baptism." He said nothing of the kind. 
But looking into the poor man's heart, and into the 
hearts of his friends, " he saw their faith." That was 
enough. He did not wait for anything further, but 
immediately, on their faith, pronounced the sentence of 
forgiveness. When the scribes began in their hearts 
to accuse him of blasphemy, '^ he saw their thoughts," 
and demonstrated to them his power to forgive sins 
by healing the man of his bodily infirmity. 

In Luke vii, 36-50, we have another illustration 
of Christ forgiving sins. Please turn and read the 
passage carefully. Here a weeping, trembling penitent 
sues for pardon at the feet of Jesus. She pours her 
penitential tears upon his feet, until she washes them 
with her tears, and then wipes them with the hairs of 
her head. Then, as he speaks to her heart in the 
voice of the Holy Spirit, and the conscious joy of 
sins forgiven takes possession of her spirit, she 



80 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

showers the kisses of gratitude upon his feet, and 
pours the precious ointment upon them. The Pharisee, 
who had invited him to dine, was about to pronounce 
against him in his heart, when Jesus addressed him in 
the parable of the creditor and debtors^ and then turn- 
ing to the penitent at his feet said to her : " Thy sins 
are forgiven. . . . Thy faith hath saved 
thee; go in peace.^^ 

This example fully illustrates the gospel law of 
pardon as taught and practiced by our Lord himself. 
He did not say to Peter, John, James, or any other 
of his disciples: "This woman has heard my word 
and believed in me, and has truly repented of her sins, 
and has confessed me before the world ; take her and 
baptize her for the remission of her sins.'^ He did 
not say to her: " Your faith is all right, and your re- 
pentance and confession are genuine, but you must be 
baptized in order that you may receive the remission 
of your sins.^^ There was certainly nothing in the 
way of her baptism. The apostles were all present, 
ready to baptize her if the Master had commanded 
them to do it. But Jesus said not a word about bap- 
tism. He simply said unto her: "Thy sins are for- 
given thee f^ and then added, " Thy faith hath 
saved thee.^^ Her faith was the one condition of her 
forgiveness. He predicates her salvation from guilt 
and sin alone upon her faith. Her deep repentance 
prepared her to exercise faith, and without it she 
could not have exercised saving faith in the Son of 



BAPTISM NOT FOR REMISSION. 81 

God. But her repentance could not wash away the 
stains of sin from her soul. The blood of Christ 
could alone do that^ and nothing but faith could con- 
nect her soul with the blood which cleanses from 
all sin. 

This example forever sets aside the doctrine of 
baptismal remission, and establishes the doctrine of 
justification by faith only, upon the immutable Rock 
of Ages. If baptism was not necessary for the re- 
mission of her sins, it is not necessary for the remission 
of anybody^s sins. If her faith was all that was 
necessary to secure to her the forgiveness of her sins, 
it is all that is necessary in any case. There is no way 
to escape this conclusion but by denying that the law 
of pardon or remission of sins laid down and practiced 
by Christ during his personal ministry, is the law 
of his kingdom since his ascension to heaven. But 
this involves the absurdity, as I have already shown, 
of having Christ preach one gospel, and commanding 
his apostles to preach another. This can not be ; there- 
fore faith in Christ is and must be the one and only 
condition of pardon to the penitent sinner. This one 
clear example of the forgiveness of sins by our Lord, 
under his gospel, must settle the whole question of the 
law of pardon or remission in his kingdom, as com- 
pletely as a thousand examples could do. 

When Jesus gave the great commission to his 
apostles to ^^ disciple all nations,^^ he commanded them, 
saying : " Teaching them to observe all things what- 



82 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

soever I have commanded you." Their teaching was 
to be restricted to the words of Jesus; they were to 
teach the nations what he had taught them, nothing 
more, nothing less. He did not teach them baptism 
for the remission of sins, and consequently he did not 
command them to teach baptism for the remission of 
sins to the nations. Could demonstration itself be 
clearer than this? It is inconceivable that our blessed 
Lord should spend three years and a half in preaching 
his own gospel, and teaching the people how they 
were to get their sins remitted, and never once men- 
tion or even allude to the most important condition 
of remission, and the one without which remission of 
sins can not be obtained. Yet he did this very thing, 
if the doctrine of baptismal remission is true. Surely 
by this time the unutterable absurdity of the doctrine 
of baptismal remission is apparent to every mind. 



PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED. 83 



CHAPTER IX. 

BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS— EXAMINA- 
TION OF PROOF TEXTS— JOHN'S BAPTISM. 

Having carefully prepared the way in the pre- 
ceding chapters, we are now prepared to take up and 
examine the passages of Scripture relied on by the 
advocates of baptismal remission to prove their doc- 
trine. Mr. Alexander Campbell, in his " Christian 
Baptism/^ which may be safely regarded as his ma- 
turest thoughts on this question, says : 

" It only remains in this part of our essay that 
we present, in the order of the inspired Books, all the 
passages that plainly import any connection between 
baptism and the remission of sins. They are the 
following : 

^^1. ^ John did baptize and preach the baptism of 
repentance for the remission of sins.' (Mark i, 4.) 

'' 2. ^ The people of Judea and Jerusalem were 
baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their sins.' 
(Mark i, 5.) 

/^ 3. ' And he came into all the country about the 
Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the 
remission of sins.^ (Luke iii, 3.) 

^' 4. ^ Repent and be baptized, every one of you, 



84 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

in the name of the Lord Jesus^ for the remission of 
sins.^ (Acts ii^ 38.) 

^^ 5. ^Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, invoking the name of the Lord/ (Acts 
xxii, 16.)'' 

On these passages he remarks : ^^ These are oracles 
as express and explicit as any we can imagine. Any 
one of them would establish the connection for which 
we plead. For, if one such connection is clearly estab- 
lished, it depends not upon the repetition of it, but 
upon the clearness and definiteness of the expres- 
sion of it.^^ 

This is intimated clearly in another passage: 

^^ 6. ^ There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.^ 
(Ephesians iv, 5.)^' 

On this passage he remarks : ^^ Now, if there be 
but one baptism, and if it appear that both the New 
Testament dispensations of baptism by John and the 
apostles clearly affirm a connection between baptism 
and remission of sins, must it not follow that the only 
divinely instituted baptism is for the remission of sins f' 

Again he says: ^^I know, indeed, it may be said 
that there are two or three forms of expression that 
might be translated in such a way as to intimate some 
other connection.^^ 

For example : ^^ As many of you as were baptized 
for Jesus Christ were baptized /or his death.^^ (Ro- 
mans vi, 3.) " Know ye not that all our fathers were 
baptized for Moses, in the cloud and in the sea?^^ 



PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED. 85 

(1 Corinthians x, 2.) '' For by one Spirit are we all 
baptized for one body/^ (1 Corinthians xii^ 13.) 
" For as many of you as have been baptized /or Christ, 
have put on Christ/^ (Galatians iii, 27.) 

" These four passages complete the canon — the 
whole volume on the subject of the relation of bap- 
tism to spiritual rights, privileges, and honors/^ 
(Campbell on Baptism, pp. 251-253.) 

Note here : 

1. Mr. Campbell claims but six passages in all the 
New Testament which teach the doctrine of baptismal 
remission. 

2. Three of these refer to John^s baptism. 

3. He gives but four more passages which show 
any ^^ connection ^^ to exist between " baptism and 
spiritual rights, privileges, and honors in the king- 
dom of God,^^ and declares that " these four passages 
complete the canon, the whole volume on the subject 
of the relation of baptism to spiritual rights, privi- 
leges, and honors. ^^ 

4. Not one of these ten passages, which consti- 
tute the whole teaching of the sacred volume on this 
important subject, is taken from the words of Jesus. 
He who came to preach his own everlasting gospel, 
in all his ministry never uttered a single word that is 
claimed by Mr. Campbell to teach that baptism is for 
the remission of sins, or that " spiritual rights, privi- 
leges, or honors ^' in his kingdom are in any way 
'' connected ^^ w^ith baptism. 



86 BAPTISMAL REMISSION, 

Compare the preaching of Christ with that of Mr. 
Campbell and his followers on this point. Jesus 
never said a word about baptism for the remission of 
sins in all the sermons that he ever preached. Mr. 
Campbell never preached a sermon touching the for- 
giveness of sins, and his followers never preach a ser- 
mon on this important subject that they do not teach 
this as the very essence of the gospel, and without 
which no man can hope to obtain remission of sins. 
Was there ever a more perfect contrast? 

5. I have already shown, in Chapter VI, that three 
of Mr. Campbells ten passages (Romans vi, 3 ; 1 Co- 
rinthians xii, 13, and Galatians iii, 27) have no refer- 
ence Avhatever to water baptism, but that they refer 
to the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 
X, 2, has no reference to Christian baptism, and it 
will not be contended for a moment that it was for 
the remission of sins. It was simply thrown in to fill 
out the number ten. Mr. Campbell himself admits 
that Acts xxii, 16, does not teach baptism for the re- 
mission of sins ; for he expressly states that " PauFs 
sins were really pardoned when he believed,^^ and that 
they were only " formally washed away in the waters 
of baptism.^^ 

6. It would take a wiser man than Solomon to 
find out that Ephesians iv, 5, teaches baptism for the 
remission of sins. How remission of sins is obtained 
is not the subject of discussion in this chapter, but 
the unity of the body of Christ. Paul shows that 



PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED. 87 

this unity is beautifully expressed and symbolized by 
the one baptism which represents it. 

We have thus effectually disposed of six of Mr. 
CampbelPs ten passages, which constitute the whole 
^^ canon of the sacred volume on the subject of the 
relation of baptism to spiritual rights, privileges, and 
honors in the kingdom of God/^ leaving but four 
passages in the whole Bible upon which to rest his 
doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. Three 
of his remaining four passages refer to John^s baptism, 
and one of them speaks only of ^' confession,^^ and 
says nothing about remission. It is Mark i, 5, and 
reads: ^^And there went out unto him all the land of 
Judea and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized 
of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.^^ 
Their submission to John^s baptism was a public ac- 
knowledgment or confession that they were sinners. 
That is all that this passage declares. It says nothing 
about how they were to receive remission of their sins, 
whether by or in baptism, or by faith, or by anything 
else. How they obtained remission of their sins, 
which, by their baptism they confessed, this passage 
does not tell us; and, so far as it is concerned, it leaves ' 
the whole matter to inference and conjecture. This 
leaves but three passages out of Mr. CampbelPs ten 
that can be claimed with any plausibility to teach the 
doctrine of baptismal remission, and two of these 
refer to John's baptism. 

Now, the question arises, Was John^s baptism ^^the 



88 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

baptism of repentance/^ as he himself expressly af- 
firms^ or was it ^^ the baptism of remission/^ as Mr. 
Campbell and his followers affirm? Everywhere in 
the New Testament where the character of John's 
baptism is spoken of, it is called '' the baptism of re- 
pentance ;'' and never ^^ the baptism of remission.^' 
John's baptism remitted no man's sins ; it Avas simply 
a public sign or profession of repentance, while by his 
preaching he gave the knowledge of salvation by, or 
more properly throughyi\iQ remission of sins, by point- 
ing out to the people the Christ through whom alone 
remission of sins can be obtained, and exhorted them 
to believe in him. 

In Acts xix, 1-5, we read : ^^And it came to pass 
that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed 
through the upper coast came to Ephesus, and finding 
certain disciples, he said unto them. Have ye received the 
Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they said unto him, 
We have not so much as heard whether there be any 
Holy Ghost. And he said. Unto what then were ye 
baptized ? And they said. Unto John's baptism. Then 
said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of 
'repentance, saying unto the people that they should 
believe on him that should come after him ; that is, on 
Christ Jesus. When they heard this they were bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 

1. Here Paul expressly affirms (1) that John's 
baptism was ^Hhe baptism of repentance ;" (2) that 
he taught the people whom he baptized '^ that they 



PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED. 89 

must believe on the Lord Jesus/^ Jobn taught the 
same doctrine that Paul did— that salvation is received 
through faith in Christ, and not by baptism. His 
whole doctrine is called " the baptism which he 
preached/^ because "baptizing with water ^^ was a 
great and prominent feature of his mission and work, 
and hence, by a common figure of speech, it is put for 
the whole. He " baptized unto repentances^ and 
"preached something for the remission of sins. What was 
it that he preached for the remission of sins ? It was 
faith in Him who should come after him, and who 
should give them the remission of their sins and 
purity of heart by baptizing them with the Holy 
Ghost. 

2. But if John^s baptism was "/or the remission 
of sins,^^ that is, " in order to the remission of sins;'^ 
and if Christian baptism is for the remission of sins, 
that is, " in order to remission of sins,^^ — then it is 
clear that we have two baptisms in the New Testa- 
ment/or, that is, " m order to, remission of siiis/^ and the 
same persons during the ministry of John, and of 
Christ and the apostles, were baptized twice ^^for the 
remission of sins!'' There is no getting around this 
fact. Every person whom John baptized, and who 
afterwards became a disciple of Christ, was baptized 
with Christian baptism. Christian baptism was in- 
stituted by Christ at the very beginning of his minis- 
try, and practiced by his disciples contemporary with 
the baptism of John. 



90 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

In John ill, 22-26, we read : 

^^ After these things came Jesus and his disciples 
into the land of Jadea; and there he tarried with 
them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing 
in ^non near to Salim, because there was much 
water there : and they came, and were baptized. For 
John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose 
a question between some of John's disciples and the 
Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, 
and said unto him. Rabbi, he that was with thee 
beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, 
the same baptizeth, and all inen come to him.'' 

Again in John iv, 1-3, we read : 

^^ When therefore the Lord knew how the Phari- 
sees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more 
disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized 
not, but his disciples,) he left Judea, and departed 
again into Galilee." 

It is evident from these passages, that Christian 
baptism was not originally instituted and commanded 
in the great commission, and practiced first on the day 
of Pentecost; but that it was instituted by our Lord 
in the very beginning of his ministry and practiced 
by his apostles, from the time they were called to the 
apostolic office. 

Now, we inquire, can a man's sins be remitted, 
after they have already been remitted? Do the 
Scriptures require any man to be baptized twice for the 
remission of sins ? Were the sins of the people whom 



PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED, 91 

John baptized remitted by his baptism, and tben re- 
mitted again by Christ^s baptism? Most unques- 
tionably they were, according to Mr. Campbell, for he 
expressly declares " that the only divinely instituted bap- 
tism is for the remission of sins, ^^ Was John^s baptism 
^^ divinely instituted f^ Yes. Was Christ\s baptism 
^'divinely instituted P^ Yes. Well, then, according to 
Mr. Campbell, they were both instituted '' for the re- 
mission of sins.^^ But this does not help me a par- 
ticle — I can not see how a man can have his sins re- 
mitted twice ! Yet we have multitudes whose sins 
were remitted by John^s baptism; and then, a little 
while after, the same sins were remitted again by 
Christ^s baptism ! Will some advocate of baptismal 
remission please enlighten my benighted mind on this 
subject, and show me how these things can be? 

Take, if you please, the twelve disciples whom 
Paul had rebaptized at Ephesus. Were their sins re- 
mitted by John^s baptism, and then remitted again by 
Christian baptism? They were unquestionably bap- 
tized tioice, by " divinely instituted baptisms,^^ and, 
according to Mr. Campbell, they were most certainly 
baptized both times ^' for^^ that is, ^^ IN order to, 
the remission of sins V^ But how a man can be bap- 
tized '' IN ORDER TO the remission ^^ of his sins, after 
his sins have been remitted, puzzles me, and I can 
not understand it! 

Surely by this time the dullest intellect can see the 
utter absurdity of Mr. CampbelFs position. It is cer- 



92 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

tain that either (1) John's baptism was not for the 
remission of sins; or^ (2) that Christian baptism is 
not /or the remission of sins; or^ (3) that neither was 
instituted /o7^ the remission of sins. Now, which one 
of these positions shall we take? If we take the 
Scriptural view of John's baptism — that it was '^ the 
baptism of repentance/' and not of '^ remission " — then 
^^ baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartion " does not 
mean ^^ baptism in order to remission of sins/' and 
the whole argument of the advocates of baptismal re- 
mission falls to the ground. 

If the expression, '' eis aphesin hamartioUy^ here 
does not mean " in order to remission of sins/' then, 
it can not mean it anywhere, and the controversy is 
at an end, and the doctrine of baptismal remission is 
overthrown ; and Mr. Campbell's interpretation of 
this and similar passages is sliown to be utterly false. 
If we take the position that John's baptism was for 
the remission of sins, but Christian baptism is not, 
the point is at once yielded, and the controversy at 
an end. So we see, take whatever position we may, 
to get out of this difficulty, the doctrine of baptismal 
remission must be abandoned. 

The truth lies in the third proposition, ^^ that 
neither John's baptism nor Christian baptism was 
instituted /or the remission of sins." Both stand re- 
lated to remission of sins and the purification of the 
heartj not as a condition in order to obtain remission 
of sins and a clean hearty but as the outward emblem 



PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED. 93 

of the in^yard and spiritual cleansing of the soul 
from sin by the baptism of the Holy Ghost^ which 
John constantly pointed to as the special mission and 
work of Christ; and the antitype of his own baptism 
w^ith water. 

3. If John^s baptism was for the remission of sins^ 
then, w^e ask, how could the sinless Jesus be baptized 
by him ? Mr. Campbell says : 

'^ In the first place, then, no one is commanded to 
be baptized, /or anything else, and no man is ever said 
to have been baptized for anything else, than for the 
remission of sins.^^ (Campbell on Baptism, p. 252.) 

Again he says : 

"Evident then, it is, that there is no ^ specific de- 
sign ' on account of w^hich any one can constitutionally 
be baptized, except it be for the remission of sins pre- 
viously committed.'^ (Ibid., p. 253.) 

If Mr. Campbell is correct here, again w^e ask, 
How could the twelve disciples at Ephesus w^ho had 
already had their sins remitted by baptism, be consti- 
tutionally baptized? And how could the vast multi- 
tudes whose sins had been remitted by John^s baptiam, 
be constitutionally baptized by the apostles? Accord- 
ing to Mr. Campbell, the apostles w^ere all violators 
of the constitution of the kingdom of God, for they 
went right on baptizing persons for the remission of 
sins, whose sins had already been remitted by John's 
baptism ! What a pity he had not lived eighteen hun- 
dred years earlier, so that he might have instructed 



94 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

the apostles not to violate the constitution of the king- 
dom of heaven in this ruthless manner! 

But we ask again, How could Christ be baptized 
if ^^ the only divinely instituted baptism is for the re- 
mission of sins T' and if ^^ no one is ever said to be 
baptized for anything else than for the remission of 
sins?^^ and if ^^ no one can constitutionally be bap- 
tized, except for the remission of sins previously 
committed ?^^ Was our blessed Lord baptized ^^for 
the remission of sins?^^ If not, did not John violate 
the constitution of the kingdom of heaven when he 
baptized him, and did not Christ himself violate the 
constitution of his own kingdom in submitting to 
baptism for an unconstitutional purpose ? 

Christ himself declared to John that it was neces- 
sary for him to be baptized in order ^^ to fulfill all 
righteousness/^ What righteousness did Christ fulfill 
by his baptism ? It was not moral righteousness, for 
he had already fulfilled all moral righteousness. Bap- 
tism belongs not to moral, but positive law ; and it 
was not positive righteousness, for Mr. Campbell tells 
us, as we have seen, that no one is ever commanded 
to be baptized for anything except remission of sins, 
and Christ could not be baptized under such a com- 
mand. It must, then, have been all ceremonial right- 
eousness, or that enjoined by the ritual of the law of 
Moses. 

The law required that Aaron and his sons should 
be washed with water at the door of the tabernacle. 



PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED, 95 

and anointed with oil, to consecrate them to the 
priestly office. Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest 
of the Church of God, and it was necessary as he 
entered upon his priesthood, Avhich was to supersede 
that of the House of Aaron, that he should be pub- 
licly consecrated to his priestly office. John, as the 
legal high priest of the House of Israel, had the 
right publicly to consecrate the Great High Priest, 
who should forever take the place of the typical 
priests of his own order. By his baptism, John and 
Christ fulfilled the righteousness of the law in this 
respect. 

Aaron was washed with water at the door of the 
tabernacle, and anointed with oil, and was thus set 
apart to his priestly office. The washing was em- 
blematical of the inward purification which a priest 
must have to minister acceptably before the Lord; 
and the anointing was emblematical of the power of 
the Holy Spirit resting upon him. So Jesus was 
washed with water, emblematical of his immaculate 
purity, and anointed with the Holy Ghost; not at 
the door of the tabernacle, for his priestly office is 
not confined to the House of Israel, but embraces 
the whole human family; hence, his consecration took 
place by the side of the river, under the canopy of 
heaven, at the door of that universal humanity, over 
which henceforth his priestly office was to be exer- 
cised. In this way his baptism fulfilled all right- 
eousness, but it was not possible that it should ful- 



96 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

fill it in any other Avay. If John's baptism was an 
emblem of moral purity^ it was proper and right, 
and in exact agreement with its import, that He who 
represented the highest moral purity on earth should 
receive it in token of that purity. But if it was 
^^for/^ that is, ^^ in order to, the remission of sins,'' 
then no greater inconsistency could have been per- 
petrated on earth, than for ^^ Him who knew no sin" 
to receive it, and thus go through the mockery of 
remission. The very fact that Jesus received the bap- 
tism of John must forever settle in the minds of all 
thoughtful men that John's bajiiism could not have 
been for the remission of sins. 

While John's baptism was a profession of repent- 
ance on the part of those who received it, and an 
emblem of the purity of heart which its antitype, the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost, alone can confer, still its 
supreme object and end was the public manifestation 
of Christ to Israel by his public consecration to, and 
induction into, his priestly office, as John himself 
expressly affirms. 

John i, 29-34, he says : 

" The next day John seeth Jesu§ coming unto him, 
and saith. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I 
said, After me cometh a man which is preferred be- 
fore me ; for he was before me. And I knew him 
not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, 
therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John 



PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED. 97 

bare record^ saying, I saw the Spirit descending from 
heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I 
knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with 
water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt 
see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, 
the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 
And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of 
God.^^ 

Here it is manifest that we have one *^ divinely- 
instituted baptism ^^ for a totally different purpose 
than that of the remission of sins, or John the Bap- 
tist was entirely mistaken in regard to the object 
of his own baptism. Looking at this declaration of 
John, in regard to the supreme object of his baptism, 
we can more clearly understand what the Master 
meant by, ^^thus it becometh us to fulfill all right- 
eousness.'^ John's mission proper, ended with the 
public manifestation of Christ to Israel, by his con- 
secration to his priestly office, and soon after ceased 
altogether by his imprisonment and death. John's 
baptism can furnish no authority for the doctrine of 
baptismal remission. 

9 



98 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 



CHAPTER X. 

BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS (ACTS IT, 38)— 
CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS AND HIS HOUSE- 
HOLD—REMISSION OF SINS THROUGH FAITH IN 
HIS NAME— THEIR HEARTS PURIFIED BY FAITH. 

We have no^t left but one single passage in all the 
New Testament which is claimed by Mr. Campbell to 
teach baptism for the remission of sins — Acts ii, 38. 
This passage is claimed as the stronghold of the ad- 
vocates of this doctrine, and it is the foundation on 
which the whole system of baptismal remission rests. 
We will therefore examine it carefully and ascertain, 
if we can, whether it does teach that baptism is ''for/' 
that is, in order to, the remission of sins. It reads : 
" Then said Peter unto them, Repent, and be bap- 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost.^^ 

The whole argument drawn from this passage in 
support of the doctrine of baptismal remission rests 
upon the Greek preposition '' eis/' here translated 
''for.'' The advocates of this doctrine claim that 
" eis/' here translated "for/' means "in order to/' 
and consequently the passage means : " Eepent and 



BAFTISM OF CORNELIUS. 99 

be baptized^ every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, in order that you may receive the remission of 
your sins.^^ According to their teaching, one of the 
most important doctrines of the gospel rests for its 
support upon the interpretation they give to one 
little preposition of three letters. Take out this pas- 
sage, and you take the foundation from under the 
whole system ; and take out this little preposition 
^^ eis/' or rather their interpretation of it, and you at 
once destroy the force of it to sustain their doctrine. 

Is it possible that so important a doctrine can 
rest on such a slender foundation? One would sup- 
pose from the stress they put upon their interpreta- 
tion of this little preposition that it never had any 
other meaning, or that this is at least its primary and 
general meaning in the New Testament. But this is 
by no means the case. It occurs one thousand seven 
hundred and forty-two times in the New Testament. 
Of these it is translated for one hundred and twenty- 
one times. In forty of these it is used with ever^ 
leaving but eighty-one times out of one thousand 
seven hundred and forty-two in which it is translated 
for in the various meanings of that word. The in- 
terpretation of " eis/^ translated for in this passage 
by the advocates of baptismal remission, is neither 
the primary nor general meaning of the word. It is 
very seldom, if ever, used in the sense of ^^in order 
to ^^ or ^^ as a condition of.^^ 

The rule we must observe in the interpretation of 



100 BAPTISMAL EEMISSION. 

language is^ words are always to be understood in 
their most usual signification, unless their connection 
forbids it. The most usual meaning of the Greek 
preposition ^' eis/' here translated for in the New 
Testament, is into. The advocates of baptismal re- 
mission contend that this is its primary meaning also, 
and in this they are sustained by many high author- 
ities. Suppose we give it its usual meaning here, and 
translate it into, instead of /or, the result will be the 
complete overthrow of the whole argument in favor 
of baptismal remission drawn from this passage. 
But perhaps some one will ask: ^^What have you 
gained by this translation ?'^ I answer, we shall see 
in a moment. If we can ascertain what ^^ eis/' ^^ into,'^ 
means in such examples of its use in the New Testa- 
ment, it will not be difficult to ascertain its meaning 
in this passage. Let us examine a few examples of 
its use in such connections: 

1. "I indeed baptize you \_eis metanoian] into re- 
pentance,^^ (Matthew iii, 11.) Our translators ren- 
der ''eis^' unto in this passage, but it should be trans- 
lated properly ^^ i7ito repcntanceJ^ To be baptized 
'' into repentance ^^ certainly does not mean ^^ m order 
to repentance,^^ John did not baptize the people ^^ in 
order '^ that they might repent, but because they had 
repented. '^ Eis metanoian, into repentance/' then, 
must mean a sign of repentance^ or a profession 
that they had already repented, and not ''for/' or 
''in order to/' repentance. Place along-side of this 



BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS. 101 

Peter's language in this passage/^ eis aphcsin hamar- 
tion/^ and on what ground can it be translated ^^ in 
order to remission of sinsf^ The cases are exactly 
parallel, and I demand the authority for interpreting 
the one " a sign or "profession of^^ and the other '' a 
condition in order toJ^ If " eis metanoian ''^ (Matthew 
iii, 11) means ^^a sign of repentance/^ or ^^a profes- 
sion of repentance/' as it unquestionably does, then 
^' eis aphesin hamartion^^ must mean ^^ a sign of re- 
mission of sins/' or a profession of faith that " remis- 
sion of sins" is received only in the name of Jesus. 

2. '^ Go ye therefore and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them [eis to ononia] i?i^othe name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 
xxviii, 19.) 

Mr. Campbell translates '^ eis^^ in this passage 
'^ intoJ^ What does it mean to be baptized " into 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost?" It surely does not mean ^^in order to^^ 
the name, etc. It can mean but one thing, and 
that is a sign or profession of faith in, and obedience 
to, the Triune God. Put these two expressions to- 
gether, " eis to onoma,^' and ^' eis aphesin hamartion/' 
and give me the law of interpretation by which you 
make ^^ eis^' to mean ^^as a profession of faith " in one, 
and ^^ as a condition of the remission of sins " in the 
other ! 

3. ^^And were all baptized [eis ton Mosen"] into 
Moses." (1 Cor. x, 2.) 



102 BAPTISMAL EE MISSION. 

What does it mean to be baptized ^^ into Moses ?'^ 
Surely " eis^^ in this passage can not mean ^^ in order 
to Moses V^ To be baptized into Moses can have but 
one meaning, and that is, the baptism was a public 
sign, or profession of faith in Moses, and obedience to 
him as a divinely appointed teacher and leader. 

4. ^* Were ye baptized \eis to onoma Paulou] 
into the name of Paulf ' (1 Cor. i, 13.) 

Surely '^ eis^^ does not mean "in order to,'^ or "as 
a condition of,^^ in this passage. Baptized " into the 
name of Paul ^^ can only mean that such a baptism 
would have been a profession of faith in, and submis- 
sion to, the authority of Paul. 

Here we have four parallel examples of the use 
of "eis,^^ in connection with baptism, in not one of 
which can it be translated " in order to,^^ but in 
every one of them it means "as a sign, or profession 
of.'^ By every law of interpretation, then, we are 
bound to give it this signification in Acts ii, 38, and 
this settles the whole controversy. Baptism " into re- 
mission of sins ^^ does not mean " in order to remis- 
sion of sins," but it means that baptism is a profes- 
sion or declaration of the faith that remission of sins 
comes only through the name of Christ ; hence it is a 
sign of remission of sins, just as baptism ^' into re- 
pentanee " is a sign of repentance. 

The Revised Version translates " eis,^^ in Acts ii, 
38, ^'unto/^ as in Matt, iii, 11, and not '^forJ^ It 
reads : "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be 



BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS. 103 

baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ unto the remission of your sins ; and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost/^ 

If baptized ^^ unto repentance '^ means ^^ as a sign 
of repentance/^ as all admit that it does, then " bap- 
tized unto remission of sins means ^^ as a sign of re- 
mission of sins/^ The two expressions are exactly 
similar, and eis translated ^' unto ^' in both passages 
means the same thing. So whether we translate ^^ eis^' 
^^into/' or ^' unto/' in this passage, it means exactly 
the same — not ^^ in order to/' but ^^ as a sign of 

But we have another preposition in this passage, 
^' epi/' the force of which has been strangely over- 
looked by the advocates of baptismal remission. '' Re- 
pent and be baptized, every one of you, epi the name 
of Jesus Christ.^^ The literal meaning of '^ epi '' is 
^' upon/' and not ^' in," What does the expression 
^^ baptized \epi^ upon the name of Jesus Christ ^^ 
mean ? It does not mean, as is usually understood by 
the advocates of baptismal remission, that baptism is 
performed in the name of Jesus Christ — that is, that 
•his name is named upon us in baptism — for baptism 
is never performed in the name of Jesus Christ, 
but " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost.^^ Their interpretation, therefore, 
of this expression can not be true. It has a far 
deeper meaning. ^^His name,^^ and ^^ in his name,^^ 
stand for his merit, his atoning sacrifice. '' Believ- 
ing in his name " is relying on his merit, his atone- 



104 BAPTISMAL REBIISSION. 

ment for salvation. ^^ Epi/^ upon — in connection 
with the name of Jesus Christ — means trusting in^ or 
relying upon, the name ; that is, trusting in the merit, 
the atoning sacrifice of Christ. 

Winer, in his large Greek Grammar of the New 
Testament, pp. 392, 393, says : 

" Figuratively^ epi denotes, in general, the founda- 
tion on which an action or state rests; ... to 
do something upon the name of some one; i, e., in do- 
ing it to rely upon, or have reference to, the name of 
some one/^ 

Dr. Edward Robinson, in his Greek Lexicon of 
the New Testament, after quoting the words of Peter 
in this verse, says : ^^ Be baptized into Clirist ; 
that is, professing a belief in him, and a devotedness 
to his service. ^^ 

Thayer, in his Greek Lexicon, says: 

^^To do anything epi to onomati tlnos, relying upon 
the name, i, 6., the authority of any one. . . . 
Baptistheto epi to onomati Christou, so as to repose 
your hope and confidence in his Messianic authority. 
(Acts ii, 38.)^' 

We see these three great authorities declare that 
'^ epi^^ in this passage, and in similar connections, 
means '' relying upon,^^ '' reposing in,^^ etc. Giving 
^' epi^' this sense, the passage reads: 

" Repent and be baptized, every one of you, relying 
on the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sinsJ^ 

Mr. Wesley puts it clearly in his comment on this 



BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS. 105 

verse. He says : " Repent^ and hereby return to God ; 
be baptized, believing in the name of Jesus, and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,^' 

When we get at the real import of the preposition 
^^ epi/' as used in this passage, the idea of baptism 
" for the remission of sins/^ which the advocates of 
baptismal remission try to make so prominent, totally 
disappears from it, and Peter declares here, as he does 
everywhere else, that ^^ remission of sins^^ is received 
through ^^ reliance on,^ that is, '^ faith in the name, 
the atoning merits ^^ of our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 
ii, 38, must be forever abandoned as teaching baptism 
for the remission of sins. A proper exegesis of it 
demonstrably proves that it teaches no such doctrine, 
but, on the contrary, it swings into harmony with the 
universal teachings of the Divine Word, and declares 
that ^^ remission of sins" is received alone through 
faith in i:he name of the Lord Jesus. 

That this is the meaning of Peter^s language on the 
day of Pentecost is demonstrated by his language to 
Cornelius and his household. (Acts x, 43.) Please 
turn and read the account of the conversion of Corne- 
lius and his household, recorded in the tenth chapter 
of Acts. 

1. Cornelius was an earnest penitent, seeing for 
the knowledge of the remission of sins. 

2. He was directed by an angel "of God to send 
for Peter, of whom the angel declared : ^^ He shall 
tell thee what thou oughtest to do " (Acts x, 6), or, as 



106 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

Peter puts it^ "Who shall tell thee words whereby 
thou and all thy house shall be saved.^^ (Acts xi^ 14.) 

3. Peter came and told Cornelius what he "ought 
to do/^ He told him " words whereby he and all his 
house were saved.^^ 

4. What " words ^^ did he tell him? His sermon 
is recorded in Acts x, 34-43 ; but in it there is not 
one word about baptism for the remission of sins. 
His sermon was very brief, and closed with this re- 
markable sentence: "To him give all the prophets 
witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in 
him shall receive remission of sins.'^ 

5. "While Peter yet spake these words, the 
Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word/^ 

Now, observe here: 

1. Peter connects remission of sins with the 
" name ^^ of Jesus, as he does in Acts ii, 38. 

2. That remission of sins is received by believing 
in him, as in Acts ii, 38. 

3. The " name'^ of Jesus is the ground of remis- 
sion, and faith in him is the condition of the remis- 
sion of sins. This is precisely the doctrine Peter 
taught on the day of Pentecost. 

4. Cornelius and his household were received of 
God, their sins were remitted, and their hearts were 
"purified by faith '^ before they received baptism, 
and before Peter had said one word about baptism 
to them. 

5. Then Peter said : " Can any man forbid water 



BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS. 107 

that these should not be baptized which have re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost as well as we V 

6. Peter ^^ commanded them to be baptized/^ not 
for the remission of sins — for their sins had already 
been remitted — but because ^^ they had received the 
Holy Ghost/^ 

7. If Peter taught baptism for the remission of sins 
on the day of Pentecost, he preached one gospel for the 
Jews and another for the Gentiles, for he certainly did 
not preach baptism for the remission of sins to the house- 
hold of Cornelius. Either our interpretation of Acts 
ii, 38, is true, or Peter preached one thing for remis- 

' sion of sins on the day of Pentecost, and a totally 
different thing to the household of Cornelius. 

8. Did Peter tell Cornelius and his household 
" words whereby they could be saved,^^ as the angel 

I declared he should ? If he did, then baptism is not 
'for the remission of sins, for Peter never told them 
one single word on that subject. 

9. Here we have a representative case. It is the 
•opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles; and 
if ever there was a time, place, and circumstances 
under which we may expect the gospel method of 
pardon or remission of sins to be fully and explicitly 
laid down, we may expect it in this case. The very 
thing Cornelius wanted to know was, how to obtain 
remission of sins. The angel had promised him that 
Peter should tell him ^^ what he ought to do '^ to ob- 
tain remission of sins, or to *^ be saved.^' Peter did, 



108 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

in the most explicit and formal manner " tell him 
what he ought to do f^ he did lay down to him the 
gospel law of pardon^ or remission of sins^ and Cor- 
nelius and his household did accept the gospel law of 
remission^ and they did receive remission of sins. 
Peter said : ^^ To him give all the prophets witness, 
that through his name ivhosoever believeth in him shall 
receive remission of sins^ He here affirms that this 
doctrine of remission of sins through '^ faith in his 
name ^^ is the doctrine of all the prophets. The 
whole teaching of the Word of God on the doctrine 
of the remission of sins is summed up in one single 
sentence, and Cornelius and his household accept it, 
believe in Jesus, and are saved in an instant, ^^ while 
Peter is yet speaking/^ 

10. Peter himself expressly affirms that their 
hearts were purified by faith, not by baptism. 

In giving an account of their conversion in the 
Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv, 7-9), he says: "Men 
and brethren, ye know that a good while ago God 
made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth 
should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And 
God which kuoweth the hearts bare them witness, 
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto 
us, and put no difference between us and them, puri- 
fying their hearts by faith.'^ 

Observe : 

1. Peter does not say that God gave them the 
miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. There is a vast 



BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS. 109 

difference bet^YeeIl receiving the Holy Ghost and re- 
ceiving his miraculous gifts. Multitudes have re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost who have not received his 
miraculous gifts, but under the gospel no one has 
ever received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost 
who had not first received the Holy Ghost himself. 

2. He says : "And God which knoweth the hearts, 
bare them witness, gi^'iiig them the Holy Ghost.^^ 
What did God " bare them witness ^^ to by " giving 
them the Holy Ghost V^ It was most unquestionably 
to the fact that he had received them and forgiven 
their sins; for it is by the Holy Ghost that he wit- 
nesses this great fact to the hearts of the saved. 

3. Finally, Peter affirms that God purified the 
hearts of the Jewish Christians by faith, just as he 
did the hearts of Cornelius and his household. "And 
put no difference between us and them, purifying their 
hearts by faithJ^ Both Jews and Gentiles were puri- 
fied, forgiven, and saved alike. If Peter is here cor- 
rect, that the Jews who were converted on the day 
of Pentecost had "their hearts purified by faith,^^ 
then they most unquestionably were not baptized for 
the remission of sins any more than Cornelius and 
his household were. Peter^s declaration, "And put 
no difference between us and them,^^ covers the whole' 
ground, and proves conclusively that all, both Jews 
and Gentiles, who were converted under the ministry 
of the apostles, had "their hearts purified hy faith l^ 
and not by baptism. This is the one and universal 



110 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

law of remission and heart purification; and it covers 
all nations and all ages. The doctrine of baptismal 
remission is thus proven to be false and unscriptural 
by the very apostle whose words have been relied on 
to prove it. Surely no further argument is necessary 
to prove the utter unscripturalness of the doctrine of 
baptismal remission. 



FAITH AND PARDON. Ill 



CHAPTER XI. 

THB APOSTLES BVBRY\VHERB TBACH THAT IT IS 
THROUGH FAITH, AND NOT THROUGH AN ACT OF 
FAITH, THAT PARDON OR REMISSION OF SINS IS 
OBTAINED— THEY AFFIRM AN IMMEDIATE CON- 
NECTION BETWEEN FAITH AND THE PARDON OF 
SINS. 

We have already seen that Peter teaches that it 
is hj faith y and not by "an act of faith/^ that remis- 
sion of sins is obtained. The same great truth is 
taught by John, the beloved disciple, both in his 
Gospel and in his Epistle. In John i, 11, 12, we 
read : " He came unto his own, and his own received 
him not. But as many as received him, to them gave 
he power to become the Sons of God, even to them 
that believe on his name.'^ 

Here the privilege or power of sonship in the 
family of God is conferred through faith, and not 
through " an act of faith.^^ Receiving Christ is " be- 
lieving on his name,^^ and " believing on his name ^^ 
is receiving him. 

In 1 John V, 1, we read : " Whosoever believeth 
that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.^^ Ifc is not 
by " an act of faith ^^ that John teaches us that we are 
born of God, but by faith itself. The moment a man 
believes, he is born of God. In verse 10 of this same 



112 BAPTISMAL EE3IISSI0N, 

chapter John says: ^^He that believeth on the Son 
of God hath the Avitness in himself/^ Here the divine 
testimony that we are sons of God is predicated on 
faith, and not ^^ an act of faith." 

In the Epistles of Paul, and in his sermons re- 
ported by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, we have 
the doctrine of justification by faith set forth in the 
fullest and clearest manner possible. In Romans x, 
8-10, he says : ^^ But what saith it? The word is nigh 
thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the 
word of faith which we preach; that if thou shalt con- 
fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe 
in thine heart that God hath raised him from the 
dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man 
believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth 
confession is made unto salvation." 

Here is a most^positive declaration that it is by the 
faith of the heart, and not by an ^^ outward act of 
faith," or ^^ an act resulting from faith," that the sin- 
ner is justified. Not a word here about anything but 
the faith of the heart as necessary to justification. 
" For with the heart man believeth [eis dikaiosunen] 
into justification." Justification or righteousness is 
here declared to be the direct and immediate result 
of the faith of the heart. Language could not be 
more explicit than is this declaration of Paul that 
justification is secured by the faith of the heart. 

In Acts xiii, 38, 39, Paul declares : ^^ Be it known 
unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through 



FAITH AND PARDON. 113 

this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of 
sins: and by him all that believe are justified from 
all things, from which ye could not be justified by 
the law of Moses/^ 

Here again justification is predicated upon faith in 
Christ. Not a word about '^ an act of faith/^ or ^^ an 
act resulting from faith/^ as necessary to justification. 

In Romans iii, 21-26, Paul sets forth the doctrine 
of justification by faith so clearly that it seems im- 
possible to misunderstand him. He says : ^^ But now 
the righteousness of God without the law is mani- 
fested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 
even the righteousness of God which is by faith of 
Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe; 
for there is no difference : for all have sinned, and 
come short of the glory of God; being justified freely 
by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous- 
ness for the remission of sins that are past through 
the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this 
time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the 
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.^' 

Here the apostle sets forth both the ground and 
the condition of our justification. The ground of our 
justification is the blood of Jesus. This is our pro- 
pitiation, our redemption. The condition of remission 
of sins and justification before God, is ^^ faith in his 
blood.^^ This is the ^^ righteousness of God which is by 

10 



114 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that 
believe/^ In view of ^Hhe propitiation ^^ of the blood 
of Christ, God can now ^^ be just, and the justifier 
of him Avhich believeth in Jesus/^ Not a word is 
said here of justification by, or through, ^^an act of 
faith/^ or ^^an act resulting from faith/^ but it is 
justification, or remission of sins, '^through faith in 
his bloodJ^\ This one passage ought to settle the question 
forever, and it must in all thoughtful minds who are not 
hopelessly blinded by prejudice. In verse 30 he says: 
^^ Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcis- 
ion by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. ^^ 
Here Jew and Gentile alike are j ustified, not by " an act 
of faith,^^ or ^^an act resulting from faith,'^ but by faith 
itself. No other of the apostles gives such an elaborate 
exposition of the law of pardon as does the apostle Paul. 
In all his preaching ^nd Avritings he sets forth faith in 
Christ — the faith of the heart — as the on^and on?^/ condi- 
tion of justification to the penitent sinner. This is the 
grand central doctrine of the Pauline system — justi- 
cation by faith. This is the first, grand, and leading 
characteristic of all his teaching. 

The second leading and conspicuous feature or 
characteristic of his sermons and epistles is the ab- 
sence of any allusion to baptism as in any way con- 
nected with the remission of sins. Not a word can 
be found in all the writings or sermons of Paul 
where he even intimates that baptism is a condition 
of remission of sins. It is inconceivable that the 



FAITH A NB FARD ON. 115 

great apostle of the Gentiles, in his elaborate exposi- 
tion of the law of pardon, should leave out the most 
essential condition, and the one without which re- 
mission of sins can not be obtained. Compare PauFs 
writings on justification with those of any leading 
advocate of the doctrine of baptismal remission on 
this subject, and the contrast is at once apparent and 
striking. Baptism does not enter into PauFs system 
of justification at all — it has no place in it. But in 
the other system it is the central idea — the final con- 
dition without which all others are rendered nugatory 
and void. Is it possible that these two systems, the 
one in which baptism is so conspicuously absent, and 
the other in which it is so conspicuously present, 
can be one and the same ? No man holding the doc- 
trine of baptismal remission could have given PauPs 
answer to the Philippian jailer without repudiating 
his whole system. Look at the contrast between 
these two systems, and then in your heart answer the 
question. Can they be one and the same system? 

Mr. Campbell could not have written the Epistle 
to the Romans, nor could Paul have written Mr. 
Campbell's essay on " Remission of Sins '^ in 
^^ Christianity Restored,^^ or his essay on ^^ The De- 
sign of Baptism ^Mn his ^^ Christian Baptism.'^ Put 
the Epistle to the Romans along-side of either of those 
essays, and the contrast is perfect — the antagonism 
complete. 

PauFs views of baptism, as expressed in 1 Co- 



116 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

rinthians i, 14-18^ demonstrably proves that he could 
not attach a saving efficacy to it. He says : ^* I thank 
God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and 
Gains; lest any should say that I had baptized in 
mine own name. And I baptized also the household 
of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized 
any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
preach the gospel : not with wisdom of words, lest the 
cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For 
the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, 
foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the 
power of God.^^ 

How could Paul have used this language if he 
believed that baptism was for the remission of sins ? 
How could he thank God that he baptized so few if 
the word he preached, and their faith in it, could be 
made effectual in their salvation only by baptism ? 
How could he say, ^^ For Christ sent me not to bap- 
tize, but to preach the gospel,^^ if the gospel can be- 
come ^^ the power of God unto salvation ^' only through 
baptism ? In verse twenty-one of this same chapter 
he says : " For after that in the wisdom of God the 
world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by 
the foolishness of preaching to save them that be- 
lieve.^^ But the advocates of the doctrine of baptis- 
mal remission declare that this is not true, for they 
tell us : '' The gospel may be preached, a man may 
hear it and believe it; but he is still unsaved until he 
is baptized.^^ They tell us ^^ no man is saved by be- 



FAITH ANB PARDON. Ill 

Heving the gospel. It is by ol)eying tlie gospel — 
that is^ by being baptized — that men are saved/^ Ac- 
cording to them^ Paul ought to have said^ '' It pleased 
God by the foolisliness of preaching to save them 
that are baptized /^ for with them^ no one is saved 
until he is baptized. But Paul never taught any 
such doctrine. Throughout his writings faith is the 
one condition of the remission of sins to the penitent 
believer. The moment the penitent exercises faith in 
the Lord Jesus, that moment he is justified^ pardoned^ 
and adopted into the divine family. Mr. Campbell, 
in speaking of faith^ admits that it constitutes a man 
^^ a son of God.^^ He says : ^^ Now as faith in God 
is the first principle — the soul-renewing principle of 
religion; as it is the regenerating^ justifying, sancti- 
ing principle — without it, it is impossible to be ac- 
ceptable to God. With it, a man is a son of Abra- 
ham, a son of God, an heir apparent to eternal life — 
an everlasting kingdom. ^^ (Christian Baptism, p. 293.) 
If faith '' is the regenerating, justifying, sanc- 
tifying principle,^^ then baptism is not ^^ the regenerat- 
ing, justifying, and sanctifying principle. ^^ If ^' with 
it a man is a son of God,^^ then he is not constituted 
a son of God by baptism, nor is he regenerated or 
justified by baptism; for faith, with Mr. Campbell, 
precedes baptism. It does not take a philosopher to 
see that if a man is ''^justified ^^ and made ^^a son of 
God^^ when he has faith, he can not be ^^ justified^' 
or made ^^ a son of God ^^ by any act subsequent to 



118 BAPTISMAL BEMISSION. 

the possession of faith. How a man could write such : 
a paragraph as the above, and still contend that a man 
is ^^justified'^ and made a son of God by baptism, 
transcends my powers to comprehend. This paragraph 
is sound and Scriptural, but it is utterly at war with 
the doctrine which teaches that a man is justified and 
made a son of God, not by faith, but ^' by an act of 
faith/^ that is, by baptism. 



JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 119 



CHAPTER XII. 

PAUL'S GREAT ARGUMENT ON JUSTIFICATION BY 
FAITH WITHOUT WORKS (ROMANS IV)— ABRA- 
HAM'S JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH— FAITH IMPUTED 
FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS — ABRAHAM'S JUSTIFICA- 
TION BY WORKS (JAMES II, 21-24.) 

Paulas crowning argument on justification by 
faith is found in Romans iv, 1-8^ drawn from the 
justification of Abraham. He says : '^ What shall we 
say then that Abraham our father^ as pertaining to 
the fleshy hath found? For if Abraham were justi- 
fied by works^ he hath whereof to glory ; but not 
before God. For what saith the Scripture ? Abra- 
ham believed God^ and it was counted unto him for 
righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the re- 
ward not reckoned of grace^ but of debt. But to him 
that worketh not^ but believeth on him that justifieth 
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the 
man unto whom God impute th righteousness without 
works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are 
forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the 
man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.^^ 

In this passage Abraham^s justification is held up 



120 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

before us as the pattern of our justification. As 
Abraham Avas justified, so shall all men be justified, 
who are justified under the gospel. In the same 
sense in which faith was imputed to Abraham for 
righteousness, it shall be imputed to all believers; for 
Paul says in verses twenty-three and twenty-four: 
^' Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it 
was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall 
be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus 
our Lord from the dead.'' 

A careful analysis of this passage shows : 

1. That Abraham was not justified by works; he 
did nothing in the shape of works, or obedience, as 
the ground upon w^hich he expected to be justified. 

2. He ^^ believed God, and it [Jiis hcUeving God, 
his faitJi] was counted unto him for righteousness.'^ 

3. In his justification he ^' tcorked not/' but simply 
with his heart '^believed God/' and, as an ungodly 
man, he was justified by faith. 

4. This justification was an imputation of faith for 
righteousness, without works. 

5. If this is not ^^justification by faith only/' what 
is it? 

What was counted or imputed to Abraham for 
righteousness? Was it his faitli, or was it ^' an act 
of faith/' or was it ^^ an act resulting from faith/' or 
was it his works of obedience ? 

In Genesis xv, 6, where the transaction is re- 
corded to which Paul refers, it is said : *^And he be- 



JUS TIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 12 1 

lieved in the Loed^ and he counted it to him for 
righteousness/^ It was not his ^^ obedience/^ or ^^an 
act of faith/^ or " an act resulting from his faith/^ but 
his believing in God, his faith itself y that was counted 
to him for righteousness. Here we have an end of 
controversy, and the great truth that Abraham was 
justified by faith without works — that is, " by faith 
only'^ — is established by the positive ^^ thus saith the 
Lord/^ 

But the advocates of baptismal remission meet us 
here with James ii, 21-24: ^^Was not Abraham our 
father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac 
his son upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought 
with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 
And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for 
righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God. 
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, 
and not by faith only.^^ 

They quote this passage with an air of triumph, 
and say to us, ^' Does not- James here say that ^ a man 
is justified by works, and not by faith onlyf ^^ and they 
think they have completely answered our argument, 
and overthrown the doctrine of ^^justification by faith 
only.^^ But, I ask, are Paul and James in these two 
passages both speaking of the same transaction, and 
do they both use the term justification in the same 
sense ? A glance at the two passages is sufficient to 
settle this question, 

11 



122 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

1. Paul is speaking of a transaction which took 
place before Ishmael was born, while James is speak- 
ing of a transaction which took place after Isaac was 
grown up to manhood. A period of not less than 
twenty-five, and perhaps as long as forty years 
elapsed between these two transactions. 

2. Paul is speaking of the justification of an 
^^ ungodly ^^ man, a sinner; hence he uses the term 
justification in the sense of pardon, or the remission 
of sins. But James is talking about the justification 
of a righteous man — one who had already been pardoned ; 
hence he uses the term in the sense of approval. 
When was Abraham, as an ungodly man, a sinner, 
justified? Before Ishmael was born. How was he 
as an ungodly man, a sinner, justified ? " He believed 
in the Lord ; and he counted it to him for righteous- 
ness.'^ When was Abraham as a righteous man jus- 
tified? ^^ When he had oftered up Isaac his son upon 
the altar/' How was he justified as a righteous 
man? By works. What did Abraham's justification 
by works prove ? It proved that " the Scripture was 
fulfilled [that is, proved to be true], which saith, 
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for 
righteousness." What was Abraham called when 
faith was imputed to him for righteousness ? He was 
called ^Uhe Friend of God.'' 

But Paul settles the question forever, as to when 
faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, 
whether it was when he offered up Isaac or before 



JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 123 

that event, in Eomans iv, 9-12. He says: ^^ Cometh 
this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or 
upon the uncircumcision also ? for we say that faith 
was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How 
was it then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision, 
or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in 
uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circum- 
cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had yet being uncircumcised : that he might be 
the father of all them that believe, though they be 
not circumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed 
unto them also ; and the father of circumcision to 
them who are not of the circumcision only, but who 
also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abra- 
ham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.^' 
Here we have the following things affirmed : 

1. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous- 
ness. 

2. It was reckoned to him before he was cir- 
cumcised. 

3. That " he received the sign of circumcision, a 
seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet 
being uncircumcised.'^ Circumcision was not merely a 
seal of Abraham's faith, but it was a seal of the 
righteousness of the faith which he had years before he 
was circumcised. Abraham had "the righteousness 
of faith,'' was pardoned, regenerated, and was the 
Friend of God before he was circumcised. 

4. He received this sign and seal of the righteous- 



124 BAPTISMAL BEMISSION. 

ness of faith ^^that he might be the father of all them 
that believe, though they be not circumcised ; THAT 
righteousness might be imputed unto them 
also/' 

5. ^^And the father of circumcision to them who 
are not of the circumcision only, but who walk in the 
steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he 
had, being yet uncircumcised/' 

Now, either Abraham was justified by faith, had 
his sins pardoned, was regenerated, and called ^^ the 
Friend of God,'^ before he Avas circumcised, or both 
Paul and James are mistaken ! But this is not all. 
Abraham was constituted ^Hhe father of many na- 
tions ^^ — that is, of all believers — by the covenant of 
circumcision, which was established before Isaac was 
born. In Genesis xvii, 4-5, we read: ^^As for me, 
behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be 
a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name 
any more be called Abram, but Abraham; for a 
father of many nations have I made thee.'' 

Paul affirms that by this very transaction Abraham 
was constituted the father of all believers. See 
Romans iv, 16-24: ^^ Therefore it is of faith, that it 
might be by grace ; to the end the promise might be 
sure to. all the seed ; not to that only which is of the 
law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham ; 
who is the father of us all, (as it is written, I have 
jnade thee a father of many nations,) before him 
whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the 



JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 125 

dead and calleth those things which be not as though 
they were : who against hope believed in hope, that 
he might become the father of many nations, accord- 
ing to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his 
own body now dead, when he was about a hundred 
years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah^s womb : 
he staggered not at the promise of God through unbe- 
lief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 
and being fully persuaded, that what he had promised, 
he was able also to perform. And therefore it was 
imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not 
written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him ; 
but for us also, to w^hom it shall be imputed, if we be- 
lieve on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the 
dead.^^ 

Here Abraham is justified by grace through faith; 
constituted the father of all believers in all ages; 
^^ staggers not at the promise of God; ^^ but is ^^ fully 
persuaded that what he had promised, he was fully 
able to perform ;^^ and his faith is imputed to him for 
righteousness, and he is called the Friend of God ; 
and yet, according to the advocates of baptismal re- 
mission, he was still an unpardoned sinner, and re- 
mained so for years afterward, and did not get remis- 
sion of his sins until he obtained it " by works,^^ in 
offering up his son Isaac on the altar ! ! Is it possible 
that men can educate themselves actually to believe 
such revolting absurdities? 



126 BAPTISMAL EEMISSION. 

But this IS not all. For many years before Abra- 
ham offered up Isaac, he walked in daily communion 
with God; was a constant worshiper of God, re- 
ceived every token possible of the Divine favor, and 
was a recognized prophet of God. In Gen. xx, 7,, 
we read: "Now therefore restore the man his wife; 
for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and 
thou shalt live." And in verse 17 we read: "So 
Abraham prayed unto God : and God healed Abime- 
lech, and his wife, and his maid-servants." Now, I 
ask, could all these things be, and yet Abraham be 
an unpardoned sinner? Reason, common sense, and 
the Word of God, all answer. No. 

The advocates of the doctrine of baptismal remis- 
sion, by their interpetation of James ii, 21-24, teach 
that a man may have "the righteousness of faith," be 
" the Friend of God,^' walk in constant communion 
with God, be a prophet of God, have his prayers 
answered daily; and also be in daily receipt of mes- 
sages from God, be admitted into the closest intimacy 
with God, be strong in faith and stagger not at the 
promise of God; and have his faith honored of God 
in the most remarkable manner, — and still be an un- 
pardoned sinner! All of these things follow from 
their interpetation of James ii, 21-24 ; for if Abraham 
was not pardoned until he offered up Isaac, then he 
enjoyed all of these blessings and favors while he was 
an unpardoned sinner! 

But why do the advocates of baptismal remission 



JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 127 

pluuge tliemselves into such a mass of absurdities and 
contradictions by their interpretation of this passage ? 
The answer to this question is found in Rom. iv, 23-24 : 
^^ NoW; it was not written for his sake alone^ that it 
was imputed to him ; but for us also, to whom it shall 
be imputed^ if we believe on him that raised up 
Jesus our Lord from the dead/^ It would not mat- 
ter so much to them how Abraham was justified if 
Paul had not declared that his justification is the 
model and pattern of the justification of all believers 
under the gospel ; that in the same sense in which 
faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, it 
shall be imputed to every one that believeth in Jesus. 
Faith in our risen Lord is imputed to us for right- 
eousness, just as Abraham^s faith in God was imputed 
to him for righteousness; hence his justification by 
faith without works, is held up by Paul as the model 
of the justification of all believers. As long, there- 
fore, as it remains written that Abraham was justified 
by faith ; that " to him that worketh not but believeth 
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is 
counted for righteousness,^^ so long will it be true 
that the children of Abraham — all believers under 
the gospel — are ^^justified by faith, without works f^ 
that their faith is imputed to them for righteousness 
also. 

But what does James mean when he says: ^^Was 
not Abraham our father justified by-works when he 
had offered Isaac his son upon the altar ?^^ 



128 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

In this chapter James is not talking about the part 
faith and works play in the pardon of a sinner, but 
their relation to each other in the Christian life, after 
a man has been pardoned and brought into the family 
of God. In verse 18 he says: ^^ Yea, a man may say, 
Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy 
faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my 
faith by my works/^ Faith and works must go to- 
gether in the Christian life; and a man can prove to 
the world that he has faith only by his works. But 
what has this to do with the pardon of sin? God 
sees the faith of the heart and on that, for Christ^s 
sake, pardons sin ; but that faith proves its existence 
to men by its fruits — good works. That this is what 
James means is evident ; for he adduces Abraham^s 
obedience to God as the evidence that the declaration of 
the Scripture — ^^ Abraham believed God, and it [his be- 
lieving God] was imputed to him for righteousness ^^ — 
was true. How does James tell us that Abraham 
proved that " faith was imputed to him for righteous- 
ness,^^ before Ishmael was born? By his works of 
obedience to God. Here James himself testifies that 
Abraham was justified, as a sinner, by faith ; but as a 
righteous man he was justified by works; and this 
justification by works proved, says James, that he was 
justified by faith many years before, when it was 
written : "Abraham believed God, and it was counted 
unto him for righteousness.'^ Thus we see that there 
is no conflict between Paul and James — both affirm 



JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 129 

that ^^ faith was imputed to him for righteousness;^^ 
that he was accounted righteous before God on ac- 
count of his faith, and not on account of his works; 
and that his after life of obedience to God was the full 
proof of the truth of the Scripture which affirmed 
that his faith " was imputed to him for righteousness.^^ 

The history of the case in Gen. xxii, proves con- 
clusively that this is the correct interpretation of this 
passage. In verse first we read : "And it came to 
pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.^^ 
The word tempt here does not give us the true idea of 
the transaction. The word in the original, and in the 
Septuagint, means to try or test. To " tempt ^^ in the 
ordinary sense of the word, is to solicit to evil. This 
God never does. But he tests or tries his servants, 
and he tested or tried Abraham^s faith. It was not a 
test or condition of the remission of sins, but the test 
of the faith of a man of God, and the test proved to 
all the world the mighty faith of Abraham. In verses 
11 and 12 we read: 

"And the Angel of the Lord called unto him out 
of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham : and he said, 
Here am I. And he said. Lay not thine hand upon 
the lad, neither do thou anything unto him : for now 
I know that thou fearest God, seeing that thou hast 
not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.^^ 

The angel did not say, " Now I know that thy sins 
are pardoned, and that thy works have brought thee 
salvation,'^ but he says : " For now I know that thou 



130 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

fearest God/^ This act did not give Abraham the 
character of the servant or Friend of God, but it 
proved the fact that he ah^eady possessed that character ; 
hence it was the test of the faith of God^s servant, 
God's prophet, not the test or condition upon which 
a sinner is to obtain remission of sins. 

The term justification, or justified, is not always 
used in the sense of pardon, or the remission of sins. 
Jesus says: ^^For by thy words thou shalt be justi- 
fied, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.^' 
(Matt, xii, 37.) Surely Jesus does not mean in this 
passage that a man^s sins are remitted by his words ! 
He means that a man's words shall either approve 
him, or condemn him in the last day. Here justified 
is used in the sense of approved. Mr. Campbell tells 
us, "Justification is ascribed to seven causes'' in the 
Bible. (Christianity Restored, p. 254.) It is a re- 
markable fact, however, that he does not find baptism 
among these seven causes of justification ! Surely 
the term justification is not used in the same sense in 
all these passages, where justification is ascribed to so 
many causes ! A\^hen a word is used in different sig- 
nifications, in different places, we must always study 
its meaning carefully in any given passage, to see what 
its import or meaning is in that passage, and not jump 
to the conclusion that because it is used in one sense 
in one place, therefore it must be used in that sense 
in every other place. That is the trouble with the 
advocates of baptismal remission. They see that 



JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 131 

Paul, in Romans iv, uses the word justification, or 
justified, in the sense of pardon or the remission of 
sins, and hence they jump to the conclusion that 
James must use it in the same sense, and by their in- 
terpretation of James, they make him flatly contradict 
Paul ; yea, and himself also. 

But why should the advocates of baptismal re- 
mission quote James to prove that the sinner is jus- 
tified by works ? Mr. Campbell himself denies that 
the sinner is justified by works, and affirms that 
baptism is not a work of righteousness. He says : 
" The works of the law, and the works of faith are 
as different as law and gospel. Works, indeed, are to 
be considered as the embodiment of views, thoughts, 
emotions, volitions, and feelings. They are appre- 
ciable indications of the states of the mind ; sensible 
exponents of the condition of the inner man. For 
example, he that seeks justification by the works of 
the law is not in a state of mind to be justified by 
the blood of Christ, or by the grace of God; he is 
ignorant of himself, ignorant of God; consequently, 
too proud of his powers to condescend to be par- 
doned or justified by the mere mercy and merits of 
another. • . . On the other hand, the works 
of him that is justified by faith are exponents of an 
essentially different state of mind. He is humble, 
dependent, grateful. Feeling himself undone, ruined, 
a debtor without hope to pay, he sues for mercy, and 
mercy is obtained ; he is grateful, thankful, and hum- 



132 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

ble before God. In this view of the matter, to jus^ 
tify a man for any wokk of which he is capable, 
would be to confirm him in carnality, selfishness, and 
pride. . • . Justification by faith in Christ is, 
then, the embodiment of views in perfect harmony 
with truth, with our condition, with the whole re- 
vealed character of God, and necessarily tends to 
humility, piety, humanity ; while justification sought 
by works as naturally tends to pride, ingratitude, 
impiety, and inhumanity. . . . Baptism is, there- 
fore, no work of law, no moral duty, no moral right- 
eousness, but a simple putting on of Christ and placing 
ourselves wholly in his hands, and uuder his guidance.^' 
(Campbell on Baptism, pp. 282-284.) 

Here Mr. Campbell repudiates the doctrine of jus- 
tification by works in toto, and denies that baptism is 
in any sense a work by which a sinner may be justi- 
fied. He teaches the doctrine of justification by faith 
in the most explicit terms, and boldly declares that 
the doctrine of justification by faith is "in perfect 
harmony with truth, with our condition, with the 
whole revealed character of God, and necessarily tends 
to humility, gratitude, piety, and humanity; while 
justification sought by works as naturally tends to 
pride, ingratitude, impiety, and inhumanity.'^ After 
this, let us never hear one of his followers quote 
James to prove justification by works. Baptism with 
Mr. Campbell is not a work of law, or of any other 
kind, but "an act of faith/' how justification by 



JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH, 1 33 

works, then, can prove that the sinner is justified by 
baptism, transcends my powers to comprehend. 
Plainly Mr. CampbelFs disciples have gone beyond 
their teacher in attempting to prove that the sinner 
is justified by works, from James ii, 21-24; for he 
expressly declares that the sinner is not justified by 
^vorks, but by faith. 

If, then, the sinner is not justified by works, and 
if baptism is not a work, but '^ an act of faith,^^ then 
James could not be speaking of the justification of 
Abraham as a sinner, in the sense of pardon ; but of 
the justification of him as a righteous man, in the 
sense of approval. 

If good works '' are appreciable indications of the 
states of mind, sensible exponents of the inner man,^^ 
as Mr. Campbell affirms that they are, then my inter- 
pretation of James ii, 21-24, is true, Mr. Campbell 
himself being judge: ^^Was not Abraham our father 
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son 
upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with 
his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 
And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham 
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for right- 
eousness ; and he was called the Friend of God. Ye 
see then how that by works a man is justified, and not 
by faith only.^^ So, too, PauPs grand argument in 
favor of justification by faith ^^ without works,^^ in 
Romans iv, stand unimpeached and unimpeachable. 

Here Mf. Campbell has helped us to clear away 



134 BAPTISMAL REMISSION. 

the rubbish which his followers have thrown around 
the doctrine of ^^justification by faith only/^ and we 
have reached the everlasting rock of truth, that ^^Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was counted to him for 
righteousness f^ and that this was " written, not for 
his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but for us 
also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on 
him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead/^ 



d&B Sttii. 



